The People's Motion for Issue, Evidentiary, and Monetary Sanctions
Santa Barbara County - Judge Thomas Anderle - 20260615 Tentative Ruling: People of the State of California v. The Kroger Co. Tentative Ruling: People of the State of California v. The Kroger Co. Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/22/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings The People's Motion for Issue, Evidentiary, and Monetary Sanctions Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff People of the State of California: John T. Savrnoch, Morgan S. Lucas, Office of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney; Erik Nasarenko, Andrew J. Reid, Office of the Ventura County District Attorney For Defendant The Kroger Co.: Jacob M. Harper, James H. Moon, Daniel H. Leigh, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
For all reasons stated herein, on or before May 6, 2026, Kroger shall serve further verified supplemental responses to special interrogatory Nos. 2, 6, 7, and 10, and form interrogatory Nos. 12.1 and 12.6. Plaintiff People of the State of California's motion for issue, evidentiary, and monetary sanctions, is denied in all other respects. The trial date of 7/8/26 is confirmed.
Background
On May 29, 2024, Plaintiff People of the State of California (People) filed their original complaint in this action against Defendant The Kroger Co. (Kroger), an operator of retail grocery stores. The People allege that beginning on November 1, 2018, Kroger sold bread products (Carbmaster Products) in California with misleading packaging pertaining to the number of calories in these products.
Between July 2024 and March 2025, the parties litigated issues pertaining to a notice of removal of this action to federal Court by Kroger, a subsequent order of remand from the federal Court to this Court, and a demurer and motion to strike by Kroger pertaining to the People's first amended complaint.
On April 9, 2025, the People filed their operative second amended complaint (SAC). The SAC asserts 10 causes of action: (1) false advertising (outside of FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500; (2) false advertising (within FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500; (3) unfair competition (false advertising outside of FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (4) unfair competition (false advertising within FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (5) unfair competition (false advertising by enticement outside of FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (6) unfair competition (false advertising by enticement within FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (7) unfair competition (misbranded food outside of FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and Health and Safety Code section 110660; (8) unfair competition (misbranded food within FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and Health and Safety Code section 110660; (9) unfair competition (untrue or misleading advertising outside of FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; and (10) unfair competition (untrue or misleading advertising within FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
As alleged in the SAC: The packaging for Carbmaster Products contained false and misleading information as to the number of calories contained in a serving. (SAC, P.P. 13-36.) "For example, on the front packaging and on the FDA Nutrition Facts panel, [Kroger] advertised that its CARBMASTER Wheat Bread contained only 30 calories. In reality, CARBMASTER Wheat Bread contained 50 calories. In another instance, [Kroger] advertised on the front packaging and the FDA Nutrition Facts panel that its CARBMASTER Hamburger Buns contained
" ' "The principal purpose of notice to the class is the protection of the integrity of the class action process. . .." ' " [Citation.] " 'The notice ' " 'must fairly apprise the class members of the terms of the proposed compromise and of the options open to the dissenting class members.' " ' " [Citation.] A class action settlement notice should present information neutrally, simply, and understandably. The notice should allow class members to evaluate a proposed settlement. Notice should describe the formula or plan for computing individual settlement class member recoveries." (Duran v. Obesity Research Institute, LLC (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 635, 644.)
The Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Hearing Date for Final Court Approval is sufficient and complies with all applicable requirements. The motion asks the court for an order provisionally certifying the settlement class. The class is ascertainable from defendants' records and is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. There are questions of law or fact common to the proposed class, and there is a well-defined community of interest among its members with respect to the subject matter of the litigation.
It appears to the court that the claims of the class representative are typical of the claims of the members of the proposed class, and that she is positioned to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class members. It also appears to the court that proposed class counsel is experienced and qualified in wage and hour class litigation and will properly and adequately represent the interests of the absent class. The court further finds that the PAGA claim class is appropriate and the terms of the PAGA settlement are, generally, fair and reasonable.
The motion for preliminary approval will be granted.
Tentative Ruling: People of the State of California v. The Kroger Co Tentative Ruling: People of the State of California v. The Kroger Co Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/06/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings The People's Motion for Issue, Evidentiary, and Monetary Sanctions Re PMQ Deposition Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff People of the State of California: John T. Savrnoch, Morgan S. Lucas, Office of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney; Erik Nasarenko, Andrew J. Reid, Office of the Ventura County District Attorney For Defendant The Kroger Co.: Jacob M. Harper, James H. Moon, Daniel H. Leigh, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
RULING For all reasons stated herein, Kroger shall produce one or more witnesses most qualified to testify on topic Nos. 2, 3, 7, and the stipulated topic in the March 12, 2026, ex parte order. The additional PMQ deposition shall take place on or before May 29, 2026, at the office of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. If the parties cannot agree on a specific date, the parties may appear ex parte and the court will set one. On or before May 15, 2026, Kroger shall serve a verification that the product formulation documents required herein and in the March 12, 2026, ex parte order have been produced. Monetary sanctions in the amount of $12,750 are awarded in favor of plaintiff the People of the State of California, payable by defendant The Kroger Co. on or before June 5, 2026. The motion is denied in all other respects.
Background
Tentative Ruling: People of the State of California v. The Kroger Co. Tentative Ruling: People of the State of California v. The Kroger Co. Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/08/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions to Compel (3) Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff People of the State of California: John T. Savrnoch, Morgan S. Lucas, Office of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney; Erik Nasarenko, Andrew J. Reid, Office of the Ventura County District Attorney For Defendant The Kroger Co.: Jacob M. Harper, James H. Moon, Daniel H. Leigh, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
RULING (1) For all reasons stated herein, Plaintiff People of the State of California's motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories, set two, is granted. Defendant The Kroger Co. shall serve verified supplemental responses as directed in this ruling on or before May 6, 2026. The Court declines to award monetary sanctions.
(2) For all reasons stated herein, Plaintiff People of the State of California's motion to compel further responses to inspection demands is granted. Defendant The Kroger Co. shall serve verified supplemental responses as directed in this ruling on or before May 6, 2026. The Court declines to award monetary sanctions.
(3) For all reasons stated herein, Plaintiff People of the State of California's motion to compel further responses to requests for admission, set one, and form interrogatories, set two, No. 17.1, is denied as to the requests for admission and granted as to form interrogatory No. 17.1. Defendant The Kroger Co. shall serve a verified supplemental response to form interrogatory No. 17.1 as directed in this ruling on or before May 6, 2026. The Court declines to award monetary sanctions.
(4) The Pretrial date of 7/8/26 at 11:30am is confirmed; the jury to come over on 7/9/26; no continuances invited or permitted.
Background
On May 29, 2024, Plaintiff People of the State of California (People) filed their original complaint in this action against Defendant The Kroger Co. (Kroger), an operator of retail grocery stores. The People allege that beginning on November 1, 2018, Kroger sold bread products (Carbmaster Products) in California with misleading packaging pertaining to the number of calories in these products.
Between July 2024 and March 2025, the parties litigated issues pertaining to a notice of removal of this action to federal Court by Kroger, a subsequent order of remand from the federal Court to this Court, and a demurer and motion to strike by Kroger pertaining to the People's first amended complaint.
On April 9, 2025, the People filed their operative second amended complaint (SAC). The SAC asserts 10 causes of action: (1) false advertising (outside of FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500; (2) false advertising (within FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17500; (3) unfair competition (false advertising outside of FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (4) unfair competition (false advertising within FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (5) unfair competition (false advertising by enticement outside of FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (6) unfair competition (false advertising by enticement within FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (7) unfair competition (misbranded food outside of FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and Health and Safety Code section 110660; (8) unfair competition (misbranded food within FDA panel), violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and Health and Safety Code section 110660; (9) unfair competition (untrue or misleading