The JustFoodForDogs lawsuit history includes a California wage-and-hour case that settled for $500,000 in 2025, a 2018 consumer class action over credit card receipts, a website accessibility suit resolved privately in 2022, a pending disability-related employment case filed in 2025, and a 2025 Proposition 65 notice over the chemical BPS. The Irvine-based fresh pet food company also handled a listeria recall in 2018, though no consumer lawsuits followed it.
The $500,000 Wage-and-Hour Settlement
The largest publicly known payout involving JustFoodForDogs came out of a labor case brought by a former employee, Jannette Frazier, in September 2023. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court as Frazier v. JustFoodForDogs, LLC (Case No. 23STCV23085), the suit was brought under California’s Private Attorneys General Act and alleged failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, and failure to provide required meal breaks.1Trellis.law. Jannette Frazier vs. JustFoodForDogs, LLC
A $500,000 gross settlement received approval in August 2025. The breakdown: $166,667 in attorney fees, $25,000 in litigation expenses, $50,000 in PAGA penalties, $7,500 as a service award to Frazier plus a $12,500 individual PAGA payment, and $11,500 in settlement administration costs. The deal covered 444 aggrieved employees across roughly 25,000 work weeks during the class period. Frazier was represented by the Abramson Labor Group.2CABIA. Jannette Frazier v. JustFoodForDogs, LLC
FACTA Class Action Over Credit Card Receipts
In January 2018, Laura Vasquez filed a proposed class action against JustFoodForDogs, LLC, alleging the company printed credit and debit card expiration dates on receipts handed to customers at the register. That practice is prohibited by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, or FACTA, because it can expose consumers to identity theft.3ClassAction.org. Woman Claims JustFoodForDogs Printed Too Much Information on Receipt
The complaint alleged the company had done this at its California retail stores since at least June 2012, giving it more than twelve years to comply. Vasquez sought statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per willful violation, attorney fees, and an injunction against the practice.4Top Class Actions. Credit Card Receipts Lawsuit Alleges Dog Food Retailer Violated FACTA Originally filed as Case No. BC689098 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as Case No. 2:18-cv-01739.5ClassAction.org. Vasquez v. JustFoodForDogs, LLC Complaint No public record of a final outcome or settlement has been reported.
Website Accessibility Case
Kevin Davis sued JustFoodForDogs in May 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:21-cv-04635), claiming the company’s website was not sufficiently accessible to people with disabilities.6Accessibility.com. Kevin Davis vs. JustFoodForDogs, LLC The parties settled privately. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the case on April 13, 2022, and in June 2022 denied a later request to restore it, noting the settlement and that the court did not retain jurisdiction over its terms.7PACER Monitor. Davis v. JustFoodForDogs, LLC Terms of the settlement were not publicly disclosed.
Pending ADA Employment Lawsuit
A newer case, Smith v. JustFoodForDogs, LLC (Case No. 1:25-cv-05868), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Thomas M. Durkin. It is docketed as a civil rights matter under the Americans with Disabilities Act relating to employment. JustFoodForDogs is represented by Littler Mendelson. Specific allegations and current status are limited in available records.8Law360. Smith v. JustFoodForDogs, LLC
Proposition 65 Notice Over BPS
In September 2025, Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. filed a 60-day notice of violation with the California Attorney General’s Office (AG No. 2025-03767) naming JustFoodForDogs and the chemical bisphenol S, or BPS, a compound related to BPA and used in some plastics and receipt paper.9California Office of the Attorney General. 60-Day Notice – 2025-03767 Under Proposition 65, the 60-day notice is a pre-suit step giving the alleged violator a chance to address the issue before a private enforcement lawsuit can be filed. No complaint or settlement has been recorded in connection with the notice.
The 2018 Listeria Recall
The recall isn’t a lawsuit, but it turns up in searches alongside the legal cases and is worth flagging. On January 18, 2018, JustFoodForDogs voluntarily recalled three daily diet products containing green beans, Beef & Russet Potato, Fish & Sweet Potato, and Turducken, in all package sizes, after testing confirmed Listeria monocytogenes. The contamination was traced to a supply of human-grade green beans.10Food Safety News. Consumer Complaint Spurs Tests; Dog Food Recalled for Listeria
Products affected had been made between November 1, 2017, and January 14, 2018, and were sold at 11 JustFoodForDogs stores in Southern California, three Pet Food Express stores in Southern California, and 10 Pet Food Express stores in Northern California. The recall was triggered by a customer whose dogs vomited and had diarrhea after eating the Turducken flavor; the company said the dogs recovered. No human illnesses were reported, no confirmed listeriosis cases in dogs were linked to the products, and affected customers were offered an unconditional credit. The FDA has classified the recall as completed and terminated.11U.S. Food and Drug Administration. JustFoodForDogs Voluntarily Recalls Three Daily Diets Because of Possible Listeria Monocytogenes Health Risk No lawsuits appear to have been filed by consumers in connection with it.