NILIMA AMIN
Nilima Amin, a California resident who is suing Subway over claims that its tuna products include components other than tuna, wants to stop the case because she is expecting a child. As a result, Subway has demanded that her attorneys be penalised for filing a baseless claim.
Nilima Amin claimed she is “unable to proceed with the obligations as plaintiff” because of “severe” morning sickness and “debilitating” circumstances as she prepares for a third child and has to prioritise her health and family.
Amin requests that the case be dismissed in San Francisco federal court without prejudice so that she can file another lawsuit when she feels better.
In a document dated May 4, Subway said that Amin’s justification failed the “straight-face” test and that her attorneys realised it would not “simply pay the windfall settlement that they [hoped] to get by constructing a high-profile shakedown.”
Additionally claiming that the “media frenzy” surrounding the case had caused significant injury, Subway criticised Nilima Amin’s “ever-changing” arguments for undermining its assertion that the tuna in its tuna sandwiches, salads and wraps was “100% tuna.”
The chain requests the dismissal of Amin’s planned class action and that her seven solicitors cover at least $618,000 of its legal costs.
Inquiries for comments were made on Monday, but Amin’s attorneys did not answer right away.
Before filing a lawsuit in January 2021, the plaintiff allegedly placed more than 100 orders for Subway tuna items.
She said that Subway substituted other fish species, chicken, pig and cattle for tuna or used no tuna at all in their products.
Amin’s contention that “reasonable consumers” would only expect tuna and nothing else was rejected by U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco in July. Tigar called it a “fact of life” that components like mayonnaise were acceptable and allowed Amin’s lawsuit to proceed.
Nearly 37,000 Subway locations may be found in more than 100 countries.
Amin v. Subway Restaurants Inc. et al., No. 21-00498, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.
