Keri Borders

Keri E. Borders is a litigator who concentrates her practice on defending consumer package good manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in both competitor and consumer class action litigation. She regularly practices in state and federal courts defending clients in complex cases involving false advertising claims, warranty claims, and violations of consumer protection laws.

Keri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, business torts, insurance coverage, and employment cases. Keri has also litigated cases in the entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, pet food, snack food, and real estate industries.

Keri clerked for the Honorable Robert J. Timlin in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Keri has been repeatedly recognized as one of Southern California’s Super Lawyers and Top Women Lawyers. Keri is regularly involved in updating industry groups and clients on trends in consumer class action and false advertising litigation.

Education :

• University of California, Hastings College of the Law, JD
• University of California, Los Angeles, BA

Admissions :

• California
• US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• US District Court for the Northern District of California
• US District Court for the Central District of California
• US District Court for the Southern District of California

Activities :

• Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles
• Los Angeles County Bar Association
• Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Los Angeles Chapter
• American Bar Association

Experience :

• Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015).  Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.
• Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.).  Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.
• Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods, No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.).  Defending frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products.
• Blue Buffalo, Ltd. v. Nestlé  Purina Petcare Company, (E.D. Mo.). Represented pet food company in prosecuting and defending Lanham Act false advertising claims involving a portfolio of pet food products.
• Wysong, Inc. v. Nestlé  Purina Petcare Company, (E.D. Mich.)  Defend pet food company Lanham Act false advertising litigation involving dog and cat food products.
• Simpson v. Kroger, Inc. and Challenge Dairy, Inc., 219 Cal. App. 4th 1352, Sept. 25, 2013. Affirmed dismissal of false advertising claims on reasonable consumer and preemption grounds.