This case was last updated from PACER on 10/05/2021 at 05:43:15 (UTC).

Jackson v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company

Case Summary

On October 2, 2021, Latonya Jackson (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates, P.C., filed a class action lawsuit against Kraft Heinz Foods Company (“Defendant”), seeking permanent injunctive relief and monetary damages along with costs and expenses among other relief for the alleged negligent misrepresentation of the ingredients of the products manufactured and sold by the Defendants. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of Illinois with Judge Andrea R. Wood presiding.


In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, “Kraft Heinz Foods Company (“Defendant”) manufactures, labels, markets, and sells pizza bagels purporting to contain mozzarella, cheddar, and Monterey Jack cheese and tomato sauce under its Ore Ida brand (“Product”)” and Relevant front label representations include “Three Cheese,” “Mini Bagels with Mozzarella, Cheddar, Monterey Jack Cheeses and Tomato Sauce,” “Made With Real Cheese,” the “Real” dairy seal, “No High Fructose Corn Syrup,” and “No Artificial Flavors.””. The Plaintiff further alleged that, “Consumers are misled by the representations because the front label omits that (1) starch, nonfat milk, and whey are added to the “real” mozzarella cheese, and (2) tomatoes are replaced with non-tomato thickeners including cornstarch.”


Plaintiff further alleged that, “Defendant’s front label (left) makes prominent use of the “REAL” dairy seal (right), owned by the National Milk Producers Federation (“NMPF”), which authorizes its use to third parties” and “The REAL Seal was introduced in 1976 by the dairy industry “to combat the use of imitation cheeses on pizzas.”” The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Defendant knows consumers want real mozzarella cheese which is why it emphasizes “Mozzarella Cheese,” protein content, the “REAL” seal and “MADE WITH REAL CHEESE” and “Defendant knew the Product did not meet the “rigorous and exacting certification process” of the NMPF to use the traditional “REAL” seal.”


Plaintiff also alleged that, “Reasonable consumers must and do rely on a company to honestly identify and describe the components, attributes, and features of a product, relative to itself and other comparable products or alternatives” and “Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers.”


There are six claims of relief laid by Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class. The first claim is for the alleged violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”), 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq. The second claim is for the alleged violation of State Consumer Fraud Acts. The third claim is for the alleged breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq. The fourth claim is for the alleged negligent misrepresentation. The fifth claim is for the alleged fraud. The sixth claim is for the alleged unjust enrichment. 


In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested the court to certify this action as a class action and certifying the Plaintiff as the representative of the class. Plaintiff further requested the court for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. Plaintiff also requested an award for monetary damages, statutory and/or punitive damages pursuant to any statutory claims, and interest along with award for costs and expenses including reasonable fees for plaintiff's attorneys and experts and any other relief the court deems just.


This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets


Case Details

  • Case Number:


  • Filing Date:


  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Personal Property Fraud

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Andrea R. Wood


Party Details


Latonya Jackson


Kraft Heinz Foods Company

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Spencer Sheehan

Attorney at Sheehan & Associates, P.C.

60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409

Great Neck, NY 11021


Court Documents





Docket Entries

  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketCASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Andrea R. Wood. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable M. David Weisman. Case assignment: Random assignment. (ey, ) (Entered: 10/04/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Latonya Jackson by Spencer Sheehan (Sheehan, Spencer) (Entered: 10/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) CIVIL Cover Sheet (Sheehan, Spencer) (Entered: 10/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT filed by Latonya Jackson; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0752-18731855.(Sheehan, Spencer) (Entered: 10/02/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases

Latest cases where The Kraft Heinz Company is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Spencer Sheehan