This post was originally published on this site
https://i-invdn-com.investing.com/trkd-images/LYNXMPEJ6Q13U_L.jpg
(Reuters) -A high-profile lawsuit by a California woman who claimed that Subway’s tuna products contain ingredients other than tuna has been dismissed.
The chain, with nearly 37,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries, and the plaintiff Nilima Amin have “come to agreement regarding dismissing the case with prejudice,” meaning it cannot be brought again, court records show.
Subway said it welcomed U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar’s decision on Thursday to dismiss the case.
The Oakland, California-based judge will rule later on Subway’s request that Amin’s lawyers be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous class action.
“Subway serves 100% real, wild-caught tuna,” the chain said in a statement. “The lawsuit and the plaintiff’s meritless claims, which have always lacked any supporting evidence, resulted in the spread of harmful misinformation and caused damage to Subway franchisees and the brand.”
Lawyers for Amin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Amin claimed to have ordered Subway tuna products more than 100 times before suing in January 2021, claiming that its tuna sandwiches, salads and wraps included other fish species, chicken, pork and cattle, or no tuna at all.
In May she asked to end the lawsuit because she had become pregnant, and was experiencing “severe” morning sickness and “debilitating” conditions that left her unable to remain a plaintiff.
That prompted Subway to demand sanctions, saying Amin’s proposed exit reflected her lawyers’ realization it would not pay a “windfall settlement” in their “high-profile shakedown.”
Subway also faulted Amin’s “ever-changing” theories to debunk its claim that its tuna products were “100% tuna.”
In opposing sanctions, Amin’s lawyers said she had a “good faith, non-frivolous basis based on testing and evidence that there was something amiss” with Subway tuna.
Last July, Tigar let the case continue but rejected Amin’s claim that tuna was the only acceptable ingredient, calling it a “fact of life” that ingredients such as mayonnaise were okay.
The case is Amin v Subway Restaurants Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 21-00498.
