The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P filed a class action against Ds, alleging claims of public nuisance and unfair and unlawful business practices premised upon Defendants' use of artificial TFAs-specifically, PHVO-in certain of their frozen pizza products when safer alternatives are available. P alleges that there is ''no safe level' of artificial transfat intake' and that consumption of TFAs increases the likelihood of developing certain illnesses and health risks. Ds moved to dismiss on the grounds that P lacks Article III standing and that P cannot sue for products that she never purchased, that P's claims are preempted by federal law, that the primary jurisdiction doctrine applies, and that P fails to allege sufficient facts to support her claims P amended the complaint to assert a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.