This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 12/07/2021 at 07:49:44 (UTC).

Locklin v. Target Corporation et al

Case Summary

On October 8, 2021, Martin Lockin (“Plaintiff” or “Lockin”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, represented by Katherine Anne Bruce of Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., filed a personal property lawsuit against Target Corporation (“Target Corp.”) and Fruit Of The Earth, Inc.,(“FOTE”)(collectively, “Defendants”), seeking monetary and injunctive relief among other relief and damages along with restitution and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains for alleged unlawful advertising practices by Defendants. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Northern District of California with Judge Thomas S. Hixson presiding. 

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that, “Challenged Representations on Products’ Labels. Also as described supra, Defendant falsely and misleadingly labels the Products with the Challenged Representation. The Challenged Representation is conspicuous. It is prominently placed on each Product’s primary display panel of the front label or packaging. The front primary display panel contains scant imagery and information about the Products, largely limited to the brand name, identity of the product (e.g., sunscreen), and one or a few claims about the Products’ attributes (e.g., size). The Challenged Representation is stated in clear, legible, and highly visible font, including a relatively large typeface that starkly contrasts with the background color and imagery. The net-effect or net-impression on consumers who view the Products is that their attention is drawn to the Challenged Representation.”

Plaintiff further alleged that, “Deception. Defendant’s labeling and advertising of the Products with the Challenged Representation, when they are not reef-safe because they contain the Harmful Ingredients, which can harm reefs, including coral reefs and/or the marine life that inhabits and depends on them, misleads and deceives reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, into purchasing the Products to their financial detriment.”

Plaintiff also alleged that, “Detriment. Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers would not have purchased the Products, or would not have purchased the Products for as great a price, if they had known that the Challenged Representations were false and, therefore, the Products did not have the attribute claimed, promised, warranted, advertised, and represented. Accordingly, based on Defendant’s material misrepresentations and omissions, reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, purchased the Products to their detriment.”

There are five claims for relief laid down by Plaintiff. The first claim is for alleged violation of California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.) on behalf of the California Subclass. The second claim is for alleged violation of California False Advertising Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.) on behalf of the California Subclass. The third claim is for alleged violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.) on behalf of the California Subclass. The fourth and fifth claim is for alleged breach of contract and unjust enrichment on behalf of the Nationwide Class and California Subclass.

In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff has requested the court for a declaratory relief against Defendants and an order certifying this action as a class action, appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative, and appointing Plaintiff’s Counsel as Class Counsel. Plaintiff has further requested the court for injunctive relief and punitive damages along with restitution and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains along with prejudgement interest and post judgement interest plus costs and attorneys fees or any other relief that the court deems appropriate.

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:

    3:21-CV-07936

  • Filing Date:

    10/08/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Personal Property Fraud

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

James Donato

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Martin Locklin

Defendants

Target Corporation

Fruit of the Earth, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Katherine Anne Bruce

Attorney at Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.

22525 Pacific Coast Highway

Malibu, CA 90265

Defendant Attorneys

Ricky Lynn Shackelford

Attorney at Greenberg Traurig, LLP

1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Hannah B. Shanks-Parkin

Attorney at Greenberg Traurig, P.A

1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900

Los Angeles, CA 90067

 

Court Documents

19 #3

Exhibit 3

19 #2

Exhibit 2

19 #1

Exhibit 1

19 #19

Main Document

#18

(#18) CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/27/2022 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 1/20/2022. Signed by Judge James Donato on 11/10/2021. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2021) (Entered: 11/10/2021)

17 #1

Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording

17 #17

Main Document

#15

(#15) NOTICE of Appearance by Hannah B. Shanks-Parkin (Shanks-Parkin, Hannah) (Filed on 11/4/2021) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

#14

(#14) Statement re #9 Answer to Complaint Defendant Target Corporation's Corporate Disclosure Statement Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 by Target Corporation. (Shackelford, Ricky) (Filed on 11/3/2021) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

#6

(#6) CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Martin Locklin.. (Bruce, Katherine) (Filed on 10/18/2021) (Entered: 10/18/2021)

#5

(#5) Summons Issued as to Fruit of the Earth, Inc., Target Corporation. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2021) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

#4

(#4) Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 12/30/2021. Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/6/2022 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2021) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

2 #1

Summons

#2

1 #3

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #2

Exhibit 2

1 #1

Exhibit 1

#1

17 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/24/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#19) AMENDED COMPLAINT First Amended Class Action Complaint against Fruit of the Earth, Inc., Target Corporation. Filed byMartin Locklin. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3)(Bruce, Katherine) (Filed on 11/24/2021) (Entered: 11/24/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/10/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#18) CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/27/2022 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 1/20/2022. Signed by Judge James Donato on 11/10/2021. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2021) (Entered: 11/10/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/05/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#17) ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge James Donato for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson no longer assigned to case, Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras.. Signed by Clerk on 11/05/2021. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(mbc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2021) (Entered: 11/05/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/04/2021

  • Docket(#16) CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (rmm2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2021) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/04/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#15) NOTICE of Appearance by Hannah B. Shanks-Parkin (Shanks-Parkin, Hannah) (Filed on 11/4/2021) (Entered: 11/04/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#14) Statement re #9 Answer to Complaint Defendant Target Corporation's Corporate Disclosure Statement Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 by Target Corporation. (Shackelford, Ricky) (Filed on 11/3/2021) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#13) Statement re #9 Answer to Complaint Defendant Fruit of the Earth, Inc.'s Corporate Disclosure Statement Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 by Fruit of the Earth, Inc.. (Shackelford, Ricky) (Filed on 11/3/2021) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#12) CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Fruit of the Earth, Inc., Target Corporation.. (Shackelford, Ricky) (Filed on 11/3/2021) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#11) Certificate of Interested Entities by Target Corporation identifying Other Affiliate State Street Corporation, Other Affiliate Blackrock, Inc., Other Affiliate The Vanguard Group for Target Corporation. re #9 Answer to Complaint (Shackelford, Ricky) (Filed on 11/3/2021) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#10) Certificate of Interested Entities by Fruit of the Earth, Inc. re #9 Answer to Complaint (Shackelford, Ricky) (Filed on 11/3/2021) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#9) Defendants' Fruit of the Earth, Inc. and Target Corporation ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand byFruit of the Earth, Inc., Target Corporation. (Shackelford, Ricky) (Filed on 11/3/2021) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 11/03/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#8) NOTICE of Appearance by Ricky Lynn Shackelford (Shackelford, Ricky) (Filed on 11/3/2021) (Entered: 11/03/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/19/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#7) SUMMONS Returned Executed by Martin Locklin. Fruit of the Earth, Inc. served on 10/15/2021, answer due 11/5/2021. (Bruce, Katherine) (Filed on 10/19/2021) (Entered: 10/19/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/18/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#6) CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Martin Locklin.. (Bruce, Katherine) (Filed on 10/18/2021) (Entered: 10/18/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#5) Summons Issued as to Fruit of the Earth, Inc., Target Corporation. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2021) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket#Electronic filing error. Utilize one summons form listing all defendants and not multiple forms. [err201]Corrected by Clerk's Office. No further action is necessary. Re: #2 Proposed Summons filed by Martin Locklin (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2021) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/12/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#4) Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 12/30/2021. Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/6/2022 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2021) (Entered: 10/12/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/08/2021

  • Docket(#3) Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 10/22/2021. (mbcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2021) (Entered: 10/08/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/08/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#2) Proposed Summons. (Attachments: #1 Summons)(Bruce, Katherine) (Filed on 10/8/2021) (Entered: 10/08/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 10/08/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number 0971-16481813.). Filed byMartin Locklin. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Bruce, Katherine) (Filed on 10/8/2021) (Entered: 10/08/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases

Latest cases where Fruit of the Earth, Inc. is a litigant

PRECILA BALABBO VS. FRUIT OF THE EARTH, INC. ET AL

San Francisco County Superior Courts | Other | 2022-10-28

Jennifer Beardsall, et al v. CVS Pharmacy, Incorporated, et al

U.S. Courts Of Appeals | Other | 19-1850 | 2019-04-30

Jan Sovich vs. Target Corporation

Ventura County Superior Courts | Personal Injury | 2016-02-17

Latest cases where Target Corporation, a Minnesota corporation is a litigant

McNerlin, James vs Doe, John

Hillsborough County 13th Judicial Circuit Courts | Personal Injury | 2023-01-13

Motley v. Target Corporation

U.S. District Courts | Personal Injury | 2:23-CV-10100 | 2023-01-12

BIANCANIELLO v. TARGET CORPORATION et al

U.S. District Courts | Personal Injury | 3:23-CV-00132 | 2023-01-11

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Hannah Beth Shanks-Parkin

Fastapp, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

U.S. District Courts | Property | 8:22-CV-00308 | 2022-02-25

Linda Kwasha v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al

U.S. District Courts | Contract | 2:21-CV-09624 | 2021-12-13

Wilson et al v. Triving Brands, LLC et al

U.S. District Courts | Property | 3:21-CV-01988 | 2021-11-24

Why is this public record being published online?

UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. By continuing to use this website, you agree to UniCourt’s General Disclaimer, Terms of Service, Cancellation and Refund Policy, Privacy Policy, and Public Records Policy. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services.