Legal Opinion

Beasley v. Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 1, 2022No. A164199Published

1Opinion of the Court

Filed 11/30/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR MAXINE BEASLEY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A164199 v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. TOOTSIE ROLL INDUSTRIES, INC., No. RG21086723) Defendant and Respondent. In this putative class action, plaintiff Maxine Beasley sued defendant Tootsie Roll Industries, Inc. (Tootsie Roll), alleging violations of federal and state law arising from the use of partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) in Tootsie Roll’s products between 2010 and 2016. In her operative first amended…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Landgraf v. USI Film ProductsSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  2. Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.California Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Lazar v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
  4. Schifando v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Oto, L. L.C. v. KhoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API