Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

Matthew Tye et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al

Track this case

Case Number:

8:15-cv-01615

Court:

California Central

Nature of Suit:

Contract: Other

Multi Party Litigation:

Class Action

Judge:

David O. Carter

Firms

Sectors & Industries:

  1. April 08, 2016

    Wal-Mart Says Pork And Beans Suit Lacks Facts, Not Meat

    Wal-Mart Stores Inc. on Thursday defended its bid to dismiss allegations by a proposed class of shoppers that it sells cans of pork and beans that contain no pork, telling a California federal judge the group's opposition brief failed to address serious questions about the testing used on the products.

  2. March 09, 2016

    Shoppers Have Beef With Wal-Mart's Bid To Chuck Pork Suit

    Consumers who say Wal-Mart Stores Inc. sold them cans of pork and beans with no pork struck back at the retail giant's arguments that there is no meat to their allegations, saying the company is demanding an unwarranted level of detail.

  3. January 28, 2016

    Wal-Mart Rips 'Threadbare' Pork And Beans Labeling Claims

    Wal-Mart asked a California federal judge on Wednesday to throw out a proposed class action accusing it of selling cans of pork and beans that don't contain any pork, arguing that the consumers behind the suit have little scientific support for their "threadbare allegation."

  4. October 08, 2015

    Wal-Mart's Pork And Beans Pure Hogwash, Class Action Says

    Wal-Mart Stores Inc. was hit with a putative class action Wednesday in California federal court by consumers accusing the retail giant of deceiving them by not putting any pork in its store-brand Great Value Pork & Beans in Tomato Sauce.