Brown Lawsuit Against Panera Bread

EFiled: Dec 04 2023 08:56AM EST
Transaction ID 71531764
Case No. N23C-12-001 JRJ
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
DAVID BROWN and DENISE FULLER,

Individually and as Co-Personal C.A. No.:
Representatives of the Estate of DENNIS
BROWN, and MARY BROWN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PANERA BREAD COMPANY and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PANERA, LLC
Defendants.
PRAECIPE
TO: Prothonotary
Superior Court of the State of Delaware
Leonard L. Williams Justice Center
500 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
PLEASE ISSUE SUMMONS directing the Sheriff of New Castle
County to serve Summons, Complaint, and related pleadings upon Defendant
Panera Bread Company, by service upon their registered agent, Corporation
Service Company, 241 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
PLEASE ISSUE SUMMONS directing the Sheriff of New Castle
County to serve Summons, Complaint, and related pleadings upon Defendant
Panera, LLC, by service upon their registered agent, Corporation Service
Company, 241 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.

SHELSBY & LEONI
/s/Robert J. Leoni
Robert J. Leoni, I.D. #2888
221 Main Street
(302) 995-6210
Attorney for Plaintiffs
DATE: December 4, 2023


Individually and as Co-Personal Representatives of C.A. No.:
the Estate of DENNIS BROWN, and MARY
BROWN,
Plaintiffs,
v.

PANERA, LLC
Defendants.
THE STATE OF DELAWARE:

TO THE SHERIFF OF NEW CASTLE COUNTY:
YOU ARE COMMANDED:
To summon the above-named defendant, so that, within 20 days after service

hereof upon Defendant exclusive of the day of service, Defendant shall serve upon
Robert J. Leoni, Esquire, Plaintiff’s attorney, whose address is 221 Main Street,
Wilmington, DE 19804, an answer to the complaint (and, if an affidavit of demand has
been filed, an affidavit of defense).
To serve upon Defendant a copy hereof and of the Complaint (and of the affidavit
of demand if any has been filed by Plaintiff).
Dated: COLLEEN REDMOND

Prothonotary
____________________________
Per Deputy
TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT:

In case of your failure, within 20 days after service hereof upon you, exclusive of the
day of service, to serve on Plaintiff’s attorney named above an answer to the Complaint (and, if
an affidavit of demand has been filed, an affidavit of defense), judgment by default will be
rendered against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint (or in the affidavit of demand, if
any).
COLLEEN REDMOND
Prothonotary
____________________________
Per Deputy
SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL CASE INFORMATION STATEMENT (CIS)
COUNTY: N K S CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:_______________
CIVIL CASE CODE: CPRL CIVIL CASE TYPE: Products Liability

(SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CODE AND TYPE)
CAPTION: NAME AND STATUS OF PARTY FILING DOCUMENT:
DAVID BROWN and DENISE FULLER, DAVID BROWN and DENISE FULLER and MARY BROWN,
PLAINTIFFS
Individually and as Co-Personal
Representatives of the Estate of DENNIS DOCUMENT TYPE: (E.G., COMPLAINT; ANSWER WITH COUNTERCLAIM)
BROWN, and MARY BROWN., COMPLAINT, ANSWERS TO FORM 30 INTERROGATORIES
ARBITRATION ___________ NON-ARBITRATION ____X_____

Plaintiffs, (CERTIFICATE OF VALUE MAY BE REQUIRED)
JURY DEMAND _____√____ YES __________ NO

V.
TRACK ASSIGMENT REQUESTED: (CIRCLE ONE)
PANERA BREAD COMPANY and
PANERA, LLC, EXPEDITED STANDARD COMPLEX
Defendants.
IDENTIFY ANY RELATED CASES NOW PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR
ATTORNEY NAME: COURT BY CAPTION AND CIVIL ACTION NUMBER INCLUDING
JUDGE'S INITIALS
Robert J. Leoni, Esquire _______________________________________________________________
Bar ID # 2888 _______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
SHELSBY & LEONI _______________________________________________________________
221 MAIN STREET
EXPLAIN THE RELATIONSHIP(S): _______________________________
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19804 _______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
TELEPHONE NUMBER: _______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
(302) 995-6210 _______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
FAX NUMBER: _______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
(302) 995-6121 OTHER UNUSUAL ISSUES THAT EFFECT CASE MANAGEMENT:
_______________________________________________________________
E-MAIL ADDRESS: _______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
[email protected] _______________________________________________________________
(IF ADDITIONAL SPACE IS NEEDED, PLEASE ATTACH PAGES)
THE PROTHONOTARY WILL NOT PROCESS THE COMPLAINT, ANSWER OR FIRST

RESPONSIVE PLEADING IN THIS MATTER FOR SERVICE UNTIL THE CASE
INFORMATION STATEMENT (CIS) IS FILED. THE FAILURE TO FILE THE CIS AND
TO HAVE THE PLEADING PROCESSED FOR SERVICE MAY RESULT IN THE
DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT OR MAY RESULT IN THE ANSWER OR FIRST
RESPONSIVE PLEADING BEING STRICKEN.

Individually and as Co-Personal C.A. No.:
Representatives of the Estate of DENNIS
BROWN, and MARY BROWN,
Plaintiffs,
v.

PANERA, LLC
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff David Brown is an adult person residing at 5528 Pulaski
Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144.
2. Plaintiff Denise Fuller is an adult person residing at 13900 Myrtlewood
Drive, Orlando, FL 32832.
3. Plaintiff Mary Brown is an adult person residing at 9682 Lake Nona
Village Place, Apt 212 Orlando, FL 32827.
4. Plaintiffs are the mother, sister, and brother of the decedent, 46-year-
old Dennis Brown who was residing at 1717 County Road 220, Apartment 3602,
Fleming Island, FL 32003 at the time of his death.
1
5. Defendant Panera Bread Company (“PBC”) is a Delaware corporation
whose registered agent is Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls Drive,
Wilmington, DE 19808. PBC’s principal place of business is in Missouri at 3630 S.
Geyer Road, Suite 100, St. Louis, MO 63127. Accordingly, PBC is a citizen of
Delaware and Missouri.
6. Defendant Panera, LLC (“PLLC”) is a Delaware limited liability
company whose registered agent is Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls
Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808.
7. PLLC is a single-member limited liability company, with PBC as its
sole member. Because PBC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Missouri, PLLC also is a citizen of Delaware and Missouri.
8. PBC is a chain bakery café offering food and beverages at various
locations in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Canada, including 1510 County
Road 220, Fleming Island, FL 32003, where Dennis purchased the product at issue
in this case, Panera Charged Lemonade.
9. Defendant, PLLC and PBC (collectively “Defendants”) manufactures,
distributes, markets, and sells the product at issue in this case, Panera Charged
Lemonade.
2
OPERATIVE FACTS
10. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set
forth herein.
11. Dennis was an independent 46-year-old man living with a
chromosomal deficiency disorder, developmental delay, and ADHD.
12. Secondary to his chromosomal disorder, he had a mild intellectual
disability and blurry vision, but with the help of his loving life coaches and
supportive family, was able to be gainfully employed and live independently.
13. He also had high blood pressure and did not consume energy drinks.
14. Dennis was a member of the Clay County Change Makers Self-
Advocacy Group and was a passionate advocate for community safety and inclusion
for people with disabilities.
15. Dennis was also a great lover of animals.
16. Dennis was a high school graduate and worked for nearly seventeen
years at Publix Super Markets.
17. Dennis loved his job, his coworkers, and the customers he served.
18. He would pack customers’ bags, walk them to their cars, talk about their
day, and share words of comfort.
19. Following his work shifts at Publix, Dennis would often go to PBC for
meals up to three times a week.
3
20. PBC was a brand known to Dennis and advertised itself as a healthier
and “clean” fast food chain restaurant for adults and children alike.
21. Dennis was a loyal consumer to PBC.
22. On or about September 27, 2023, Dennis began ordering the Panera
Charged Lemonade.
23. Dennis, who only drank water, root beer, iced tea, and lemonade
purchased a Panera Charged Lemonade (Mango Yuzu Citrus) at the PBC located at
1510 County Road 220, Fleming Island, FL 32003.
24. Dennis, who was very habitual, ordered the Panera Charged Lemonade
on September 28th, October 2nd, October 4th, October 5th, and October 7th.
25. On or about October 9, 2023, after finishing his work shift, Dennis went
to PBC and ordered his meal at approximately 3:29 PM.
4
26. Dennis again purchased a Panera Charged Lemonade (Mango Yuzu
Citrus) at the PBC located at 1510 County Road 220, Fleming Island, FL 32003.
27. The display of Panera Charged Lemonade at the retail store at 1510
County Road 220, Fleming Island, FL 32003 was offered side-by-side with all of the
store’s non-caffeinated and/or less caffeinated drinks; it was not advertised as an
“energy drink” nor were there any warnings to consumers.
28. The Panera Charged Lemonade was not behind the counter.
29. The Panera Charged Lemonade is an unregulated beverage which
includes no warning of any potentially dangerous effects, even the life-threatening
effects on blood pressure, heart rate, and/or brain function.
includes no warning of any risks of ingesting these concentrated amounts of caffeine
in connection with the stimulants and sugar.
includes no advertisement as an “energy” drink and, instead, are represented as
5
“clean” and akin to Panera Dark Roast coffee, when they contain not only caffeine,
but also the stimulant guarana and exorbitant amounts of sugar.
32. Panera Charged Lemonade is advertised as “Plant-based and Clean
with as much caffeine as our Dark Roast coffee” in small print and suggests “Sip,
ENJOY, Repeat. Unlimited Sip Club.”
33. Accordingly, Dennis consumed the Panera Charged Lemonade,
reasonably confident it was a traditional lemonade containing a reasonable amount
of caffeine safe for him to drink.
34. Upon information and belief, during his ninety-minutes at PBC, Dennis
refilled his charged lemonade two additional times.
35. Dennis had a known habit of drinking three beverages in a row.
36. On October 9, 2023, on or around 5:16 PM, Dennis left PBC to walk
home.
6
37. Following his consumption of the Panera Charged Lemonade, Dennis,
while walking from the PBC to his home, suffered a cardiac event.
38. After being found unresponsive on the sidewalk at approximately 5:45
PM, Dennis was pronounced dead at the scene.
39. Defendants design, formulate, manufacture, market, warrant, promote,
distribute, and sell to consumers at their retail locations a product called Panera
Charged Lemonade.
40. Defendants sell the Panera Charged Lemonade at one of their retail
stores located at 1510 County Road 220, Fleming Island, FL 32003.
7
41. Panera Charged Lemonade is a beverage designed by Defendants that
contains the following ingredients: water, caffeinated mango yuzu citrus flavored
syrup (water, apple juice concentrate, sugar, citric acid), caffeine, coffee extract
(source of caffeine), guarana extract (source of caffeine), acerola powder, ascorbic
acid, natural flavor (mango, yuzu, and citrus natural flavors with other natural
flavors), beta-carotene (color), and agave lemonade base (water, sugar, lemon
juice, lemon juice concentrate, agave, natural flavors).
42. Many ingredients in the Panera Charged Lemonade are classified as
“stimulants” by the Centers for Disease Control, which warns that ingredients for
consumption classified as “stimulants” may have dangerous health effects by
increasing blood pressure, heart rate, breathing, as well as dangerous effects on the
nervous system.1
43. The caffeine content of the Panera Charged Lemonade ranges from 260
milligrams in 20 fluid ounces (regular size) to 390 milligrams in 30 fluid ounces
(large size, Sip Club size).
44. At 30 fluid ounces, Panera Charged Lemonade exceeds the combined
contents of 12 fluid ounces of Red Bull (114 milligrams caffeine) and16 fluid ounces
of Monster Energy Drink (160 milligrams caffeine).
1
The Buzz on Energy Drinks, CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION,
https://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/nutrition/energy.htm (last visited Jul. 12, 2023).
8
45. At 30 fluid ounces, Panera Charged Lemonade exceeds the combined
contents of three 12 fluid ounces of Red Bull (114 milligrams caffeine).
46. The caffeine content of Panera Dark Roast coffee ranges from merely
161 milligrams in 12 fluid ounces (small coffee), 216 milligrams in 16 fluid ounces
(medium coffee), and 268 milligrams in 20 fluid ounces (large coffee).
47. The sugar content of Panera Charged Lemonade ranges from 82 grams
to 124 grams of sugar, exceeding the combined contents of both a 12-fluid-ounce
Red Bull (27 grams of sugar) and 16-fluid-ounce Monster Energy Drink (54 grams
of sugar).
48. The low end of the sugar content of Panera Charged Lemonade (82
grams of sugar) is equivalent to 20.5 teaspoons of sugar, and the high end (124 grams
of sugar) is equivalent to 29.75 teaspoons of sugar.
49. Panera Charged Lemonade is defective in design because it is a
dangerous drink.
50. Defendants knew or should have known that the Panera Charged
Lemonade, as designed and formulated, once consumed, could injure children,
pregnant and breastfeeding women, and people sensitive to caffeine by causing
catastrophic injuries and/or death.
9
51. Due to the defective and unreasonably dangerous design of Panera
Charged Lemonade, consumers were and continue to be at an increased risk of injury
while consuming the dangerous beverage.
52. Due to the unreasonably dangerous and defective design of Panera
Charged Lemonade, as described throughout this Complaint, Dennis suffered a
cardiac event which resulted in his death.
53. Panera Charged Lemonade is also defectively manufactured because it
is mixed in-house by Panera employees.
54. This manufacturing is inherently dangerous because Panera Charged
Lemonade involves mixing unsafe ingredients at certain concentrations.
55. Knowing this, before and during the marketing and sale of the Panera
Charged Lemonade, Defendants knew or should have known that proper quality
control for manufacturing and/or mixing the product was crucial to consumer safety,
and that permitting their employees to mix the product could result in an increased
risk of causing permanent and catastrophic injuries to consumers—especially in a
vulnerable population, children, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and caffeine-
sensitive individuals.
56. Due to the unreasonably dangerous and defective manufacturing of
Panera Charged Lemonade, as described throughout this Complaint, Dennis
experienced a cardiac event which resulted in his death.
10
57. Defendants also failed to properly warn consumers of their dangerous
product, Panera Charged Lemonade.
58. Defendants did not market, advertise, and sell Panera Charged
Lemonade in the store as an “energy drink,” which is a drink containing large
amounts of caffeine, added sugar, other additives, and stimulants, such as guarana
and/or taurine and/or L-carnitine (“stimulants”).
59. Instead, Defendants market, advertise, and sell Panera Charged
Lemonade as a product that is “Plant-based and Clean with as much caffeine as our
Dark Roast Coffee.”
60. The fact that Defendants do not specify what size of Panera Dark Roast
coffee is akin to a Panera Charged Lemonade makes this representation ambiguous
and unhelpful to consumers.
61. Panera Dark Roast coffee has no sugar.
62. Panera Dark Roast coffee’s only ingredient is “Arabica Coffee.”
63. Panera Charged Lemonade does not declare the total quantity of
caffeine from all sources on the container itself—rather, it merely compares it to an
unspecified size of Panera Dark Roast coffee, a beverage which does not contain the
added stimulants of sugar and guarana.
64. Panera Charged Lemonade contains the stimulant guarana as another
source of caffeine content.
11
65. Panera Charged Lemonade is a juice beverage marketed to children and
adults alike, and it was displayed and offered in PBC stores in the same or similar
manner and location in which they offer all other non-caffeinated juice beverages.
66. This marketing is especially dangerous to a vulnerable population,
children and adults who would reasonably believe this product was lemonade and
safe for consumption.
67. Consumers are not provided a factual basis for understanding it is an
energy drink containing exorbitant amounts of caffeine, caffeine sources, stimulants,
and sugar.
68. Panera Charged Lemonade is not in compliance with the labeling or
marketing commitments adopted by the American Beverage Association, which is
the trade association representing the broad spectrum of companies that manufacture
and distribute non-alcoholic beverages, including energy drinks, in the United
States.2
69. Before and during the marketing and sale of the Panera Charged
Lemonade, Defendants knew or should have known that the defective and
unreasonably dangerous design of Panera Charged Lemonade could cause
2
ABA Guidance for the Responsible Labeling and Marketing of Energy Drinks, AM. BEVERAGE ASS’N,
https://www.energydrinkinformation.com/files/resources/2014-energy-drinks-guidance-approved-by-bod-
43020c.pdf (last visited July 17, 2023).
12
catastrophic injuries, including, inter alia, heart arrythmias, cardiac arrest, and/or
death.
70. Knowing this, before and during the marketing and sale of the Panera
Charged Lemonade, Defendants knew or should have known that (1) proper notice
of the product’s exorbitant caffeine content was required and (2) that the omission
of such consumer notice increased the risk of causing permanent and catastrophic
injuries, especially to vulnerable populations, children, pregnant and breastfeeding
women, and caffeine-sensitive individuals (e.g., those with underlying heart
problems).
71. Defendants knew or should have known that displaying the Panera
Charged Lemonade in the same manner and location in which PBC offers all other
non-caffeinated juice beverage options increased the risk of causing permanent and
catastrophic injuries to consumers unaware of the beverages’ serious differences.
72. In addition, Defendants knew or should have known that failing to
advertise the Panera Charged Lemonade as an energy drink increased the risk of
causing permanent and catastrophic injuries to consumers.
73. Despite knowing that the design of the Panera Charged Lemonade
caused and increased the risk of causing permanent and catastrophic injuries and
death, Defendants continued to advertise, market, and sell Panera Charged
Lemonade as a safe-for-all beverage.
13
74. Defendants even included Panera Charged Lemonade as part of their
“Sip Club”—whereby they encouraged Sip Club members to drink unlimited Panera
Charged Lemonade every day.
75. The defective design and manufacturing of the Panera Charged
Lemonade caused, increased the risk of harm, and/or was a substantial contributing
cause of causing permanent and catastrophic injuries to consumers, including
Dennis.
76. The failure to warn of the risk of severe injury or death to consumers,
including Dennis, as described throughout this Complaint, caused, increased the risk
of harm, and/or was a substantial contributing cause of causing permanent and
catastrophic injuries to consumers, including Dennis.
77. As set forth more fully below, Defendants engaged in negligent,
reckless, intentional, fraudulent, reckless, and/or outrageous misconduct which
caused, increased the risk of harm, and/or was a substantial contributing cause of
Plaintiffs’ and Dennis’ injuries and damages which include, but are not limited to,
the following:
a. untimely death at 46 years old;

b. cardiac arrest;
c. hypoxia;
d. pain and suffering;
e. loss of enjoyment of life and life’s pleasures;
f. mental anguish;
g. emotional distress;
h. disfigurement;
14
i. embarrassment;
j. future lost wages;
k. loss of future earning capacity;
l. funeral expenses;
m. medical expenses;
n. all damages recoverable under the Survival Action;
o. all damages recoverable under the Wrongful Death Action; and
p. all damages as set forth in greater detail in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and
as permitted by Delaware law.
78. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness, willful
and wantonness of Defendants, jointly and severally, and by and through their
respective actual and apparent agents, employees, and servants, Dennis died.
79. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence, recklessness, willful
and wantonness and breaches in the standard of care by Defendants, Dennis, while
living, incurred losses and expenses.
80. As a further and direct proximate cause of the negligence, recklessness,
willful and wantonness and breaches in the standard of care by Defendants, Dennis,
while living, incurred pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional pain and
suffering and other associated damages.
81. As a result of the negligence, recklessness, willful and wantonness of
Defendants, the individual Plaintiffs suffered the loss of services, society, comfort,
and companionship of Dennis.
15
COUNT I – NEGLIGENCE
PLAINTIFFS v. ALL DEFENDANTS
82. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the above paragraphs as though
set forth fully herein.
83. At all relevant times hereto, it was Defendants’ duty to use reasonable
care in the design, manufacturing, formulation, marketing, sale, promotion, and/or
distribution of Panera Charged Lemonade.
84. This duty required Defendants to ensure that its product did not pose an
unreasonable risk of bodily harm to Dennis and all other consumers, and similarly
required Defendants to warn of side effects, risks, and dangers associated with the
consumption of Panera Charged Lemonade.
85. At all relevant times hereto, Defendants knew or should have known of
the foreseeable risk of cardiac-related injuries inherent in consuming Panera
Charged Lemonade.
86. Defendants breached the duty of care they assume and owe to
consumers and were negligent, careless, and reckless in designing, formulating,
manufacturing, marketing, selling, promoting, and distributing Panera Charged
Lemonade in one or more of the following respects:
a. the Panera Charged Lemonade was designed such that it could cause
cardiac-related injuries to persons, especially to a vulnerable
population, children, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and
caffeine-sensitive individuals;
16
b. the Panera Charged Lemonade is manufactured and formulated in-
store by employees such that its caffeine content is not controlled
and, in turn, has an innate and dangerous potential to vary;
c. the Panera Charged Lemonade marketing, labeling, and/or

packaging misrepresented the beverage as a harmless fruit juice
beverage when it is akin to an energy drink;
d. the Panera Charged Lemonade marketing and/or website

misrepresented the beverages caffeine content as “as much as [their]
dark roast coffee,” when a large Panera Dark Roast coffee contains
268 milligrams of caffeine, and a large Panera Charged Lemonade
has 390 milligrams of caffeine;
e. the Panera Charged Lemonade was offered without limit even

though Defendants knew or should have known of the risks
associated with exorbitant caffeine and stimulant consumption;
f. the Panera Charged Lemonade marketing, labeling, and/or

packaging misrepresented the beverage’s potential to cause cardiac-
related injuries, especially to a vulnerable population, in children,
pregnant and breastfeeding women, and caffeine-sensitive
individuals;
g. Defendants failed to adequately inform and warn consumers of the

beverage’s high caffeine content and related propensity to cause
cardiac-related injuries, especially to a vulnerable population, in
children, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and caffeine-sensitive
individuals;
h. Defendants designed, formulated, assembled, manufactured, sold,

promoted, supplied, and/or distributed a product in a defective
condition;
i. Defendants designed, formulated, assembled, manufactured, sold,

promoted, supplied, and/or distributed a product that was
unreasonably dangerous to consumers;
j. Defendants designed, formulated, assembled, manufactured, sold,

promoted, supplied, and/or distributed a product which was not
17
reasonably fit, suitable, or safe for its intended and represented
purpose;
k. Defendants designed, formulated, assembled, manufactured, sold,

promoted, supplied, and/or distributed a product which could be
designed more safely;
l. Defendants marketed the Panera Charged Lemonade as “safe” and

“plant-based”;
m. Defendants failed to adequately inform and warn consumers that the

Panera Charged Lemonade was designed such that it can cause
cardiac-related injuries in persons who consume it;
n. Defendants failed to adequately inform and warn consumers that the

Panera Charged Lemonade is not a traditional caffeine-free
lemonade such that it is similar to an energy drink;
o. Defendants failed to adequately inform and warn consumers that the

Panera Charged Lemonade was designed in such a way that it is not
safe for consumption, including a vulnerable person, children,
individuals;
p. Defendants failed to adequately inform and warn consumers that the

Panera Charged Lemonade is assembled in-store by employees such
that its caffeine content and stimulants are not controlled and, in
turn, has an innate potential to vary dangerously;
q. Defendants failed to cease manufacturing or otherwise alter the

composition of Panera Charged Lemonade to produce a safer
alternative, despite the fact that Defendants knew or should have
known that such drinks posed a serious risk of bodily harm to
consumers;
r. Defendants inaccurately and misleadingly marketed the Panera

Charged Lemonade as an “energy drink” on the PBC website, but
not in the store setting;
18
s. Defendants failed to conduct post-marketing surveillance to
determine the safety of Panera Charged Lemonade;
t. Defendants inaccurately and misleadingly marketed the Panera

Charged Lemonade as safe and “clean”;
u. Defendants inaccurately and misleadingly marketed and offered the

Panera Charged Lemonade as a fruit juice beverage, displaying it in
the same or similar manner and location in which PBC offers all
other non-caffeinated juice beverage options;
v. Defendants inaccurately and misleadingly marketed the Panera

Charged Lemonade’s caffeine content on PBC’s website as “as
much as [Panera’s] dark roast coffee”; and
w. other negligence regarding Panera Charged Lemonade that may be

identified during discovery
87. Defendants’ negligence, carelessness, and recklessness in designing,
formulating, manufacturing, marketing, promoting, and selling Panera Charged
Lemonade was the direct and proximate cause of Dennis’s injuries and damages, as
previously set forth herein.
88. Defendants knew or should have known that consumers, including
Dennis, would accept the material misrepresentations made regarding the nature and
safety of Panera Charged Lemonade as true and accurate.
89. Defendants designed, manufactured, and sold the Panera Charged
Lemonade knowing that the product was defective because it contained stimulants
causing cardiac arrhythmias and other cardiac-related injuries—especially in a
19
vulnerable population, children, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and caffeine-
sensitive individuals, such as those with underlying heart conditions.
90. Defendants designed, manufactured, and sold the Panera Charged
Lemonade knowing that the product was defective because it contained almost the
maximum amount of caffeine suggested by the FDA per day, but also contained
additional stimulants and sugar and induced unlimited refills on the dangerous
beverages.
91. By failing to give Dennis warning of the potential and reasonably
foreseeable consequences of using the product and by its material
misrepresentations, Defendants acted with wanton and willful disregard of Dennis’s
health and rights.
92. At all times, Defendants knew or should have known that there was a
high degree of probability of harm to Dennis and acted with a reckless indifference
to the potential and foreseeable consequences of Defendants’ defective product by
selling a dangerous product for consumption that contained high levels of caffeine,
stimulants, and sugar and making the product available for unlimited refills.
93. At all times, Defendants knew or should have known of the serious
harm that could result from their conduct as it is well-known that high amounts of
caffeine and stimulants can be dangerous to consumers, especially to a vulnerable
20
population, in children, pregnant and breastfeeding women, and caffeine-sensitive
individuals.
to the potential and foreseeable consequences of Defendants’ defective product by
ignoring the media coverage on the dangerousness of the product and consumers’
complaints relating to the dangerous of the product.
95. Defendants knew or should have known, or recklessly disregarded, the
likelihood that such serious harm would arise from their conduct.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly
and severally, for special damages, general damages, including pain and suffering,
punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest pursuant to Title 6 Delaware Code
and 10 Del. C. §3724, costs, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate.
COUNT II – FRAUD
97. At all relevant times hereto, Defendants knew or should have known of
the foreseeable risk of cardiac-related injuries inherent in the Panera Charged
Lemonade given the known contents of the drink.
21
98. At all relevant times hereto, Defendants had a duty to disclose the
material facts to its consumers that the Panera Charged Lemonade was an energy
drink that contained high amounts of caffeine, stimulants and sugar and was
dangerous for consumption especially to a vulnerable population, in children,
pregnant and breastfeeding women, and caffeine-sensitive individuals.
99. Defendants negligently and recklessly misrepresented and failed to
disclose material facts regarding the safety of the Panera Charged Lemonade in one
or more of the following respects:
a. inaccurately marketing the Panera Charged Lemonade “plant-

based” and “clean” inducing consumers to believe that their product
is safe for consumption;
b. serving this dangerous Panera Charged Lemonade knowing that

consumers believe PBC to be a healthier alternative to fast food and
inducing consumers to believe their product is safe for consumption;
c. including the Panera Charged Lemonade as part of the unlimited Sip

Club membership inducing consumers to believe that unlimited
refills of their product are safe for consumption;
d. knowing that the Panera Charged Lemonade contained not only

large amounts of caffeine but also stimulants and not marketing it as
an energy drink;
e. knowing that the Panera Charged Lemonade was an energy drink

and failing to market it as an energy drink to consumers in the store
setting;
f. concealing the fact the Panera Charged Lemonade is an energy drink

and not safe especially to a vulnerable population, in children,
individuals;
22
g. marketing the Panera Charged Lemonade as an energy drink on the
PBC website, but concealing this information in the store setting;
h. inaccurately marketing and offering the Panera Charged Lemonade

as a safe lemonade beverage, displaying it in the same or similar
manner and location in which Panera offers all other beverage
options as opposed to behind the counter;
i. inaccurately marketing, labeling, and/or packaging misrepresented

the beverage as a safe lemonade beverage when it is an energy drink
containing more caffeine, sugar and stimulants than 3 Red Bulls;
j. misrepresenting the safety of the product in failing to warn of the

beverage’s potential to cause cardiac-related injuries, especially to a
vulnerable population, in children, pregnant and breastfeeding
women, and caffeine-sensitive individuals;
k. inaccurately marketing the Panera Charged Lemonade’s caffeine

content “as much as [Panera’s] dark roast coffee” when it not only
has more caffeine in its large size drink, but also contains stimulants
and sugar;
l. knowing that consumers would obtain a large cup and/or refill the
Panera Charged Lemonade as part of the unlimited Sip Club
membership and failing to disclose the material facts regarding that
dangerous consumption; and
m. other misrepresentations regarding Panera Charged Lemonade that

may be identified during discovery.
Dennis, would accept the material misrepresentations made regarding the nature and
safety of Panera Charged Lemonade as true and accurate.
23
Dennis, would rely on the material misrepresentations made regarding the safety of
Panera Charged Lemonade when deciding whether to consume it.
102. Defendants materially represented the nature of Panera Charged
Lemonade with the intent to induce consumers, including Dennis, to purchase and
consume it.
103. Dennis justifiably relied on Defendants’ material misrepresentations
regarding the safety of the Panera Charged Lemonade when deciding to consume it.
104. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ material
misrepresentations, Dennis suffered severe injuries and damages from consuming
Panera Charged Lemonade in a reasonably foreseeable manner, as previously set
forth herein.
105. At all times, Defendants knew there was a high degree of probability of
harm to Dennis and acted with a reckless indifference to the potential and foreseeable
consequences of Defendants’ defective product.
106. At all times, Defendants knew of the serious harm that could result from
their conduct.
107. Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the likelihood that such
serious harm would arise from their conduct.
24
COUNT III – BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF

MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
109. Defendants impliedly warranted that, among other things, Panera
Charged Lemonade was safe, “clean,” and “plant-based” to members of the
consuming public, including Dennis.
110. Defendants impliedly warranted that Panera Charged Lemonade was a
harmless fruit juice beverage when it is actually akin to an energy drink.
111. Defendants impliedly warranted that by having Panera Charged
Lemonade as part of their Sip Club membership, it was safe to members of the
consuming public to drink refills of their product, including Dennis.
112. Defendants breached their duty to Dennis and Plaintiffs to ensure that
the Panera Charged Lemonade was fit for its ordinary uses and reasonable
expectations of the safety of lemonade at a restaurant like Panera Bread, including
as a safe drink, and as stated above.
25
113. Defendants breached their duty to Dennis and Plaintiffs to ensure that
the Panera Charged Lemonade was fit for its intended purposes, including as a safe
drink, and as stated above and below.
114. Panera Charged Lemonade was not fit for its ordinary uses or intended
purposes, as stated above and below.
115. Panera Charged Lemonade does not conform to these implied
representations of safety because it contains an exorbitant amount of caffeine content
and stimulants causing cardiac arrhythmias and other cardiac-related injuries,
especially in a vulnerable population, children, pregnant and breastfeeding women,
and caffeine-sensitive individuals.
116. Defendants breached their implied warranties to the consuming public,
including, but not limited to, Dennis.
117. Defendants sold the Panera Charged Lemonade with the implied
warranty that it was safe to consume by members of the public by not warning of its
dangers, having it be readily accessible to all consumers to fill and refill, and having
it be part of their Sip Club membership, including but not limited to, Dennis.
118. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the implied
warranties, Dennis suffered the injuries and damages set forth herein, entitling
Plaintiffs to damages.
26
to the potential and foreseeable consequences of Defendants’ defective product.
120. At all times, Defendants knew or should have known of the serious
harm that could result from their conduct.
121. Defendants knew or should have known, or recklessly disregarded, the
likelihood that such serious harm would arise from their conduct.
COUNT IV – WRONGFUL DEATH

123. Dennis Brown died on October 9, 2023.
124. The aforesaid actions of the Defendants, jointly and severally, and by
and through their respective actual and apparent agents, employees and servants,
caused Dennis’ death.
125. Plaintiffs bring this Wrongful Death Action pursuant to 10 Del. C. §
3722 et seq., as the surviving mother and siblings of Dennis Brown.

27
126. As a result of the aforesaid actions of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs
suffered the loss of Dennis, as well as the loss of love, comfort, support,
companionship, and society as each Plaintiff would have received from Dennis.
127. Plaintiffs have been caused to suffer mental anguish, grief, sorrow, in
the past and will continue to suffer the same in the future as a result of the death of
Dennis.
128. As Personal Representatives of the Estate of Dennis Brown, Plaintiffs
assert and claims all damages as set forth in the Wrongful Death Act and supporting
case law.
COUNT V – SURVIVAL ACTION

130. As Personal Representatives of the Estate of Dennis Brown, Plaintiffs
David Brown and Denise Fuller bring this action on behalf of the Estate of Dennis
Brown in accordance with 10 Del. C. § 3701 et seq.
28
131. The aforesaid actions of the Defendants, jointly and severally, and
individually and by and through their respective actual and apparent agents,
employees, and servants, caused Dennis to suffer cardiac arrest, suffer conscious
pain and suffering, and the other damages and injuries detailed in the paragraphs
above, until Dennis’s untimely death.
132. As Personal Representatives of the estate of Dennis Brown, Plaintiffs
assert and claims all damages as set forth in the Survival Act and supporting case
law.
SHELSBY & LEONI
/s/Robert J. Leoni
221 Main Street
(302) 995-6210
DATE: December 4, 2023
29
DAVID BROWN, as Personal )

Representative of the Estate of DENNIS )
BROWN, Deceased and )
DENISE FULLER, as Personal ) CASE NO.:
Representative of the Estate of DENNIS )
BROWN, Deceased )
)
Plaintiffs )
)
v. )
)
PANERA BREAD COMPANY and ) TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED
PANERA, LLC )
)
)
Defendants
PLAINTIFFS’ ANSWERS TO FORM 30 INTERROGATORIES

1. Give the name and present or last-known residential and employment address
and telephone number of each eyewitness to the incident which is the subject
of this litigation.
ANSWER: Detective Dan Cassani

Clay County Sheriff’s Office
901 North Orange Avenue
Green Cove Springs, FL 32043
Phone: 904-264-6512
Clay County Fire Rescue

BAT1, E17, E22, R22
Phone: 904-284-7703
2. Give the name and present or last-known residential and employment address
and telephone number of each person who has knowledge of the facts relating
to the litigation.
ANSWER: David Brown (Brother of Dennis Brown)
5528 Pulaski Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19144
Phone: 215-407-0556
Denise Fuller (Sister of Dennis Brown)

13900 Myrtlewood Drive
Orlando, FL 32832
Phone: 407-575-4929
DeAnn Burgess (Life Coach of Dennis Brown)

167 Spicewood Circle E
Middleburg, FL 32068
Phone: 904-718-2062
Detective Dan Cassani

Clay County Sheriff’s Office
901 North Orange Avenue
Phone: 904-264-6512
Clay County Fire Rescue

BAT1, E17, E22, R22
Phone: 904-284-7703
Investigation is continuing and Plaintiffs reserve the right to

supplement this answer.
3. Give the names of all persons who have been interviewed in connection with
the above litigation, including the names and present or last-known residential
and employment addresses and telephone numbers of the persons who made
said interviews and the names and present or last-known residential and
employment addresses and telephone numbers of persons who have the
original and copies of the interview.
2
ANSWER: Investigation is continuing and Plaintiffs reserve the right to
4. Identify all photographs, diagrams, or other representations made in

connection with the matter in litigation, giving the name and present or last-
known residential and employment address and telephone number of the
person having the original and copies thereof. (In lieu thereof, a copy can be
attached.)
ANSWER: See below. Investigation is continuing and Plaintiffs reserve the right
to supplement this answer.
1) Photo of Dennis Brown provided by sister, Denise Fuller
2) Panera Bread Charged Lemonade Receipt of Dennis Brown
3) Panera Bread Order Confirmation of Dennis Brown
3
4) Text to David Brown from Dennis Brown relating to timing at Panera Bread
5) Medical Emergency Alert of Dennis Brown death
4
5. Give the name, professional address, and telephone number of all expert
witnesses presently retained by the party together with the dates of any written
opinions prepared by said expert. If an expert is not presently retained,
describe by type the experts whom the party expects to retain in connection
with the litigation.
ANSWER: Objection, this interrogatory seeks information beyond the scope of

Rule 26. Without waiving this objection, Plaintiffs expect to retain the
appropriate medical, liability, vocational, and economic experts.
6. Give a brief description of any insurance policy, including excess coverage,

that is or may be applicable to the litigation, including:
a) The name and address of all companies insuring the risk:
b) The policy number(s);
c) The type of insurance;
d) The amounts of primary, secondary, and excess coverage.
5
ANSWER: None as to Plaintiffs. Unknown as to Defendants.
7. Give the name, professional address, and telephone number of all physicians,
chiropractors, psychologists, and physical therapists who have examined or
treated you at any time during the ten year period immediately prior to the
date of the incident at issue in this litigation.
ANSWER: Bud Wolfson, M.D.
Baptist Primary Care – Reedy Branch
10898 Baymeadows Road, Suite 300
Jacksonville, FL 32256
Phone: 904-363-2733
Michelle A. Prosje, Psy.D.

Licensed Psychologist/Neuropsychologist
NeuroBehavioral Specialists of Jacksonville, Inc.
12443 San Jose Blvd STE 503
Jacksonville, FL 32223
Phone: 904-685-1234
Investigation is continuing and Plaintiffs reserve the right to

SHELSBY & LEONI
/s/Robert J. Leoni
221 Main Street
(302) 995-6210
Date: December 4, 2023

Brown Lawsuit Against Panera Bread

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brown Lawsuit Against Panera Bread

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Read this document in other languages

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brown Lawsuit Against Panera Bread

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the case about?

What is the case about?

What documents are being served?

What documents are being served?

EFiled: Dec 04 2023 08:56AM EST

DAVID BROWN and DENISE FULLER,

PANERA BREAD COMPANY and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLEASE ISSUE SUMMONS directing the Sheriff of New Castle

County to serve Summons, Complaint, and related pleadings upon Defendant

Panera Bread Company, by service upon their registered agent, Corporation

Service Company, 241 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.

PLEASE ISSUE SUMMONS directing the Sheriff of New Castle

County to serve Summons, Complaint, and related pleadings upon Defendant

Panera, LLC, by service upon their registered agent, Corporation Service

Company, 241 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.

DATE: December 4, 2023

DAVID BROWN and DENISE FULLER,

PANERA BREAD COMPANY and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

THE STATE OF DELAWARE:

To summon the above-named defendant, so that, within 20 days after service

Dated: COLLEEN REDMOND

TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT:

COUNTY: N K S CIVIL ACTION NUMBER:_______________

CIVIL CASE CODE: CPRL CIVIL CASE TYPE: Products Liability

CAPTION: NAME AND STATUS OF PARTY FILING DOCUMENT:

BROWN, and MARY BROWN., COMPLAINT, ANSWERS TO FORM 30 INTERROGATORIES

ARBITRATION ___________ NON-ARBITRATION ____X_____

JURY DEMAND _____√____ YES __________ NO

(IF ADDITIONAL SPACE IS NEEDED, PLEASE ATTACH PAGES)

THE PROTHONOTARY WILL NOT PROCESS THE COMPLAINT, ANSWER OR FIRST

DAVID BROWN and DENISE FULLER,

PANERA BREAD COMPANY and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

1. Plaintiff David Brown is an adult person residing at 5528 Pulaski

Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144.

2. Plaintiff Denise Fuller is an adult person residing at 13900 Myrtlewood

Drive, Orlando, FL 32832.

3. Plaintiff Mary Brown is an adult person residing at 9682 Lake Nona

Village Place, Apt 212 Orlando, FL 32827.

Fleming Island, FL 32003 at the time of his death.

Wilmington, DE 19808. PBC’s principal place of business is in Missouri at 3630 S.

Delaware and Missouri.

6. Defendant Panera, LLC (“PLLC”) is a Delaware limited liability

Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808.

7. PLLC is a single-member limited liability company, with PBC as its

business in Missouri, PLLC also is a citizen of Delaware and Missouri.

8. PBC is a chain bakery café offering food and beverages at various

in this case, Panera Charged Lemonade.

9. Defendant, PLLC and PBC (collectively “Defendants”) manufactures,

10. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set

11. Dennis was an independent 46-year-old man living with a

chromosomal deficiency disorder, developmental delay, and ADHD.

12. Secondary to his chromosomal disorder, he had a mild intellectual

supportive family, was able to be gainfully employed and live independently.

for people with disabilities.

15. Dennis was also a great lover of animals.

years at Publix Super Markets.

day, and share words of comfort.

meals up to three times a week.

ARBITRATION _______ NON-ARBITRATION X_

JURY DEMAND _√ YES ______ NO