Subway tuna lawsuit is being dismissed

A high-profile lawsuit by a California girl who claimed that Subway’s tuna merchandise comprise elements aside from tuna is being dismissed.

The chain, with almost 37,000 eating places in additional than 100 international locations, and the plaintiff Nilima Amin have “come to agreement regarding dismissing the case with prejudice,” in line with a Thursday docket entry within the Oakland, California federal courtroom.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, who oversees the case, will rule afterward Subway’s request that Amin’s legal professionals be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous class motion, the docket entry exhibits.

Lawyers for Amin didn’t instantly reply to requests for remark. Subway had no fast remark.

Amin claimed to have ordered Subway tuna merchandise greater than 100 occasions earlier than suing in January 2021, claiming that its tuna sandwiches, salads and wraps included different fish species, hen, pork and cattle, or no tuna in any respect.

In May she requested to finish the lawsuit as a result of she had turn out to be pregnant, and was experiencing “severe” morning illness and “debilitating” circumstances that left her unable to stay a plaintiff.

That prompted Subway to demand sanctions, saying Amin’s proposed exit mirrored her legal professionals’ realization it will not pay a “windfall settlement” of their “high-profile shakedown.”

Subway additionally mentioned the media frenzy from the lawsuit had brought on extreme hurt, and faulted Amin’s “ever-changing” theories to debunk its declare that its tuna merchandise have been “100% tuna.”

In opposing sanctions, Amin’s legal professionals mentioned 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 proceed however rejected Amin’s declare that tuna was the one acceptable ingredient, calling it a “fact of life” that elements similar to mayonnaise have been okay.

The case is Amin v Subway Restaurants Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 21-00498.

(Editing by Jamie Freed)