A lawsuit filed by a California woman who alleged that Subway’s tuna doesn’t contain any actual tuna has been dismissed, court records show.
The case was dismissed “with prejudice,” which means it is a permanent dismissal and cannot be brought back to court. Plaintiff Nilima Amin in April had filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the case against Subway because of her health. The company welcomed the dismissal and reiterated in a Thursday statement that it “serves 100% real, wild-caught tuna.”
“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,” a Subway spokesperson said.
In her motion to dismiss, Amin said she brought the case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in good faith. Court documents said she “continues to believe there is good cause to continue it as addressed herein,” but that Amin wanted the case dismissed because of complications with a pregnancy.
“Ultimately, the health of the Plaintiff and her unborn child is paramount to her participation in this litigation,” her attorneys wrote in the motion. “Given that this case remains in the early stages of litigation with no depositions taken and some basic written discovery exchanged, there is no prejudice to any party by dismissing the action at this juncture.”
The suit was originally filed in January of 2021 by Amin and Karen Dhanowa. The suit claimed the two “were tricked into buying food items that wholly lacked the ingredients they reasonably thought they were purchasing,” based on the labeling.
Subway, which has vigorously defended its tuna —even launching www.subwaytunafacts.com in May— filed a motion for sanctions in the case. The company asked for sanctions of $617,955 plus the costs incurred in association with this motion. The motion for sanctions called the tuna suit “frivolous litigation.”
“Plaintiff’s counsel were given every opportunity to withdraw their meritless claims at the pleading stage but they refused to do so, pointedly choosing to ignore the evidence and to force Subway to spend valuable resources litigating claims that have no basis in law or fact, motivated by the prospect that Subway might simply pay a windfall settlement just to make them and the bad publicity they created go away,” lawyers for the company wrote. “Such litigation conduct is inexcusable and should not be condoned, much less encouraged.”
Judge Jon Tigar will rule later on the demand for sanctions.
In 2016, Subway, which has more than 37,000 locations across more than 100 countries, settled a class-action suit over the length of its “Footlong” sandwiches.