The California woman suing Subway after claiming its tuna salad was "made from a mixture of various concoctions" wants to end her lawsuit against the sandwich chain. This has prompted Subway to demand her lawyers be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous case — one that has already taken a big bite out of their business, according to a new report by Reuters.
Nilima Amin was one of two original plaintiffs, initially alongside Karen Dhanowa who has since dropped out, who filed a class action suit against the chain on the basis that the chain fraudulently advertised their tuna subs. Amin claimed that she had eaten at least 100 meals from Subway containing their tuna before suing.
"In truth, the products do not contain tuna as [an] ingredient. On the contrary, the filling in the products has no scintilla of tuna at all. In fact, the products entirely lack any trace of tuna as a component, let alone the main or predominant ingredient," the women claimed in their lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California.
But now, two years after the initial lawsuit, Amin is now pregnant with her third child and is suffering from "debilitating" morning sickness and health conditions as she prepares for the birth. She says she is "unable to proceed with the obligations as plaintiff." Amin wants the court to dismiss the case without prejudice, which would allow her to resume the lawsuit at a later date if she chose to do so.
However, according to Reuters, Subway thinks that Amin's seven lawyers actually just realized they would not get the "windfall settlement that they hoped to get by constructing a high-profile shakedown."
Amin's case has been met with pretty healthy skepticism since the beginning. As San Francisco Chronicle reporter Soleil Ho wrote at the time, the lawsuit itself was kind of a non-story as the plaintiffs and their attorneys repeatedly declined to specify what was found in an analysis of the tuna salad.
Ultimately, last year, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco let Amin's case continue as he ruled that it would be premature to take Subway at its word that any non-tuna DNA found in the tuna salad was definitely just from the mayonnaise.
"Although it is possible that Subway's explanations are the correct ones, it is also possible that these allegations refer to ingredients that a reasonable consumer would not reasonably expect to find in a tuna product," Tigar wrote in the July 7 filing.
However, the judge balked at Amin's argument that customers would expect "100% tuna and nothing else" on their tuna salad sandwiches.
"Consumers understand that tuna salad is usually mixed with mayonnaise and that a tuna sandwich will contain bread," Tigar wrote in his ruling. "Without an affirmative misrepresentation, the Court will not suspend logic and find that a reasonable consumer would be misled by the mere fact that Subway's tuna products include any ingredients beyond tuna."
In light of Amin's desire to end her lawsuit, Subway wants Amin's proposed class action permanently dismissed, and for her legal team to pay at least $618,000 of its legal bills.
