CJ-2026-25 - Daren P. Ebacher v. Arizona Beverages USA, LLC

What's This Case About?

Let’s be real: most of us have had a moment where we took a sip of something and immediately regretted it. Maybe it was flat soda, maybe it was someone else’s half-finished drink, maybe it was kombucha (no judgment). But unless you’re a contestant on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!, you’ve probably never taken a swig of green tea and realized you were sharing it with a deceased rodent. That, my friends, is exactly what Daren P. Ebacher says happened to him — and now, he’s suing the makers of Arizona Green Tea for $75,000. Because nothing says “refreshing beverage” like courtroom drama over a mouse smoothie.

So who is Daren Ebacher? A regular guy from Tulsa, Oklahoma, who just wanted a can of Arizona Green Tea with Ginseng and Honey — not a biology lab in a beverage. According to the court filing, he bought the can from Toby’s Central Market, a local grocery store that, to be fair, probably didn’t advertise “free rodent protein boost” on the shelf tag. The defendants? Two New York-based companies: Arizona Beverages USA, LLC — the brand you see splashed across gas station coolers with its psychedelic 90s-inspired label — and US Beverage Packers, LLC, the behind-the-scenes bottler (or in this case, canner) that allegedly sealed fate — and a mouse — into that aluminum tomb. Ebacher isn’t accusing the grocery store. Nope. He’s going straight to the source: the people who manufactured, bottled, and shipped that can across state lines, presumably without running a “tiny mammal check” before sealing it shut.

Now, let’s walk through the horror movie that was January 5, 2024, for Mr. Ebacher. He buys the can. He drinks most of it. Seems fine. Then, as he’s finishing it off — clunk. Something hits the top of the can. Not a weird ice chunk. Not sediment. A mouse. Inside. Sealed. In his tea. The document doesn’t say whether he screamed, threw up, or immediately started Googling “do I need rabies shots after rodent tea?” — but it does say he immediately drove himself to the hospital. Which, honestly? Respect. Most of us would’ve been calling 911 while dry-heaving in the parking lot. He sought medical treatment, missed work, and — perhaps most damning — suffered “extreme emotional distress and mental suffering.” And really, can you blame him? Imagine trying to enjoy a quiet evening and your brain keeps flashing back to the moment you literally consumed rodent broth. That’s not just a bad day. That’s a therapy invoice waiting to happen.

Why is this in court? Well, Ebacher’s lawyer isn’t just mad — she’s strategically mad. The lawsuit lays out three legal claims, but don’t worry, we’re not diving into Latin maxims or obscure tort doctrine. First up: negligence. In plain English, Ebacher is saying, “You had a duty to make sure your tea didn’t contain woodland creatures, and you failed spectacularly.” The filing lists a whole buffet of ways the companies allegedly dropped the ball: failing to inspect facilities, failing to control pests, failing to train employees, failing to maintain quality control — basically, failing at every single thing you’re supposed to do when bottling drinks for human consumption. And here’s the kicker: the can was sealed. No tampering. No suspicious puncture holes. Which means, according to Ebacher, that the mouse got in before the can was closed — during manufacturing. And if that’s true, it’s not just gross. It’s a catastrophic breakdown in basic food safety.

Next claim: product liability. This one’s like negligence’s edgier cousin. It says, “Your product was defective and unreasonably dangerous.” You don’t have to prove someone was careless — just that the product itself was flawed and caused harm. And let’s be honest: a can of tea with a mouse in it is objectively more dangerous than a can of tea without one. The average consumer does not expect to ingest vermin when they crack open a beverage. The filing argues the tea “deviated in a material way” from what it should’ve been — which is a polite way of saying, “This isn’t tea. This is a biohazard.”

Finally, breach of warranties — a fancy way of saying, “You promised this was safe to drink, and it wasn’t.” When companies sell food and drinks, they’re making silent (and sometimes explicit) promises that the product is fit for consumption. That’s called an “implied warranty of merchantability.” By selling tea with a mouse in it, Ebacher claims, Arizona Beverages and US Beverage broke that promise. And when a warranty’s broken and someone gets hurt? Lawsuit time.

So what does Ebacher want? $75,000. Is that a lot? For a single can of tea? On paper, yes — that’s about 75,000 times the retail price. But when you factor in medical bills, lost wages, therapy, and the sheer psychological trauma of realizing you’ve been unknowingly drinking mouse tea, it starts to make more sense. This isn’t just about the cost of a beverage. It’s about the cost of peace of mind. And honestly? If you’ve ever had a nightmare about food contamination, you know that some scars don’t show up on a medical chart. The demand is under $75,000 — likely to keep it in state court jurisdiction — and he’s demanding a jury trial, which means he wants real people, not a judge, to decide whether this was a freak accident or corporate negligence on a cinematic scale.

Now, our take: Look, we’re not saying every tea can needs a CT scan before it leaves the factory. But come on. A mouse? In a sealed can? That’s not just a slip-up. That’s a failure so absurd it feels like a plot twist in a low-budget horror film. The most insane part? Ebacher drank almost the whole thing before discovering the intruder. That means he didn’t just see it — he consumed it. And yet, he still managed to drive himself to the hospital. Dude has more composure than most of us would have after finding a hair in our salad.

Are we rooting for him? Honestly — kind of. Not because we think every spilled soda deserves a lawsuit, but because food safety isn’t a joke. Companies that mass-produce what we put into our bodies have a responsibility to, you know, not poison us. And while rodents in beverages are freakishly rare, they’re also freakishly preventable. If this case forces one factory to upgrade its pest control, then maybe — just maybe — it’s worth the drama.

But also? Arizona Green Tea, if you’re listening: maybe add “rodent-free guarantee” to your label. Just a suggestion.

Case Overview

$75,000 Demand Jury Trial Petition

Jurisdiction

District Court, Oklahoma

Filing Attorney

Ashley Roberts Webb

Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison, and Lewis, P.C.

Relief Sought

$75,000 Monetary

Plaintiffs

Daren P. Ebacher individual
Rep: Ashley Roberts Webb

Defendants

Arizona Beverages USA, LLC business
US Beverage Packers, LLC business

Claims

#	Cause of Action	Description
1	Negligence	Plaintiff consumed a beverage with a rodent inside and suffered injury and trauma
2	Product Liability	Defective beverage caused harm to Plaintiff
3	Breach of Warranties	Defendants breached warranties that the beverage was safe for human consumption

Petition Text

1,667 words

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA DAREN P. EBACHER, vs. ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA, LLC, and US BEVERAGE PACKERS, LLC, Plaintiff, Defendants. Case No.: CJ-2026-00025 PETITION 1. The Plaintiff, Daren P. Ebacher ("Plaintiff"), is an adult resident citizen of Tulsa, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. 2. The Defendant, Arizona Beverages USA, LLC ("Arizona Beverages"), is a limited liability company incorporated and headquartered in the State of New York. 3. The Defendant, US Beverage Packers, LLC ("US Beverage"), is a limited liability company incorporated and headquartered in the State of New York. 4. On January 5, 2024, the Plaintiff purchased an "Arizona Green Tea with Ginseng and Honey" from Toby’s Central Market located at 450 West 7th, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119. Plaintiff subsequently drank the entirety of the beverage before something hit the top of the can as he was finishing it; thereafter, the Plaintiff discovered there was a mouse inside the beverage can and Plaintiff immediately drove himself to a local hospital. 5. The Arizona Green Tea with Ginseng and Honey consumed by the Plaintiff is believed to have been manufactured, bottled (canned), packaged, and placed into the stream of commerce by US Beverages, who is, based upon information and belief, the exclusive bottler and packager of the beverage “Arizona Green Tea with Ginseng and Honey.” 6. The Plaintiff sought medical treatment and advice due to drinking the contaminated beverage. It impacted Plaintiff’s work and lifestyle. He also suffered extreme emotional distress and mental suffering. 7. At all times relevant herein, Arizona Beverages and US Beverage were engaged in the business of manufacturing, bottling, packaging, and distributing “Arizona Green Tea with Ginseng and Honey.” Arizona Beverages and US Beverage placed this product, including the can that the Plaintiff opened, into the stream of commerce for intended sale and consumption by individuals such as the Plaintiff, including for sale and consumption in the State of Oklahoma. 8. Arizona Beverages and US Beverage exercised exclusive control and management over the beverage and all times during its bottling and packaging, through and including the time that it sealed the beverage. 9. The beverage was not tampered with after it was manufactured, bottled, packaged, and sealed by Arizona Beverages and US Beverage. 10. A rodent inside a sealed beverage would not occur except for the want of reasonable care on the part of Arizona Beverages and/or US Beverage. 11. The Plaintiff faced physical and emotional peril from Arizona Beverages’ and/or US Beverage’s negligent acts and/or omissions and he was physically impacted by the presence of a mouse in his beverage. The Plaintiff was within the zone of danger resulting from Arizona Beverages’ and/or US Beverage’s negligent acts and/or omissions directed at the Plaintiff, including as the consumer of the beverage. The Plaintiff was subjected to a reasonable fear of immediate (and potentially long-term) personal injury and did in fact suffer substantial mental and emotional injury, illness, and trauma as a result. 12. All acts of negligence complained of herein were committed by employees, agents, servants, and/or assigns of Arizona Beverages and/or US Beverage, all acting within the course and scope of their employment and/or authority. These employees, agents, servants, and/or assigns include, but are not limited to, manufacturing and/or bottling facility personnel, maintenance personnel, inspection personnel, pest control personnel, management personnel, and/or quality control personnel. COUNT 1 – Negligence 13. Plaintiff adopts, incorporates, and re-states all allegations set forth above. 14. At all times relevant, Arizona Beverages and US Beverage owed the Plaintiff certain duties, including, but not limited to, the duty to exercise reasonable care in the manufacturing and bottling of the beverage at issue. 15. At all times relevant, Arizona Beverages and US Beverage owed to all persons who purchase and/or consume "Arizona Green Tea with Ginseng and Honey," including the Plaintiff, to: a. Exercise reasonable care in manufacturing and/or bottling the beverage to ensure that only the beverage ingredients were included in the beverage and that no contaminating substances, including rodents, were allowed to be sealed in the can; b. Exercise reasonable care in maintaining and inspecting all of its facilities and/or equipment to ensure that they were free of any potential contaminating substances or organisms, including rodents; c. Exercise reasonable care in inspecting all beverages manufactured and/or bottled to ensure that they were free of contaminating substances or organisms, including rodents; d. Exercise reasonable care in controlling and preventing the entry of pests, including rodents, into their manufacturing or bottling facilities; e. Exercise reasonable care to maintain quality control in the manufacturing and/or bottling of the beverages manufactured, bottled, and distributed; f. Properly train and supervise manufacturing and/or bottling facility personnel, maintenance personnel, inspection personnel, pest control personnel, and/or quality control personnel, and all other such type employees, agents, servants, and/or assigns, to ensure that they exercised the requisite degree of care necessary to prevent a contaminating substance or organism, including rodents, from being sealed inside a beverage that could result in injury and/or damages to the consumer of their beverages. 16. Plaintiff's injuries and damages were proximately caused by the negligence and carelessness of Arizona Beverages and US Beverage and their employees, in that they breached the duties set out above and were otherwise negligent and careless in one or more of the following respects: a. Failing to ensure that only the beverage's ingredients were included in the beverage and that no contaminating substances, including rodents, were allowed to be sealed in the can; b. Failing to properly inspect all of the facilities and/or equipment to ensure that they were free of potential contaminating substances or organisms, including rodents; c. Failing to inspect all beverages manufactured and/or bottled to ensure they were free of contaminating substances and organisms, including rodents; d. Failing to control and prevent the entry of pests, including rodents, into its beverage manufacturing and bottling facilities; e. Failing to maintain quality control in manufacturing and/or bottling of beverages manufactured, bottled, or distributed; f. Failing to properly train and supervise manufacturing and/or bottling facility personnel, maintenance personnel, inspection personnel, pest control personnel, and quality control personnel, and all other such type of employees, agents, servants, and/or assigns, to ensure that they exercised the requisite degree of care necessary to prevent a contaminating substance or organism, including a rodent, from being sealed inside a beverage that could result in injury and/or damages to the consumer. 17. As a direct, forseeable legal and proximate result of the numerous and continuous acts of negligence committed by Arizona Beverages and US Beverage, by and through their employees, agents, servants, representatives, and/or assigns, the Plaintiff consumed a beverage with a rodent inside of it and suffered severe injury, trauma, and damages as a consequence. 18. Arizona Beverages' and US Beverage's breach of their duties and their failure to exercise the appropriate and reasonable levels of care in the manufacture and bottling of the beverage at issue were the proximate and legal cause and the substantial factor of Plaintiff's injuries, damages, and losses. COUNT 2 – Product Liability 19. Plaintiff adopts, incorporates, and re-states all allegations set forth above. 20. At all times relevant, Arizona Beverages and US Beverage, by and through their agents, employees, servants, and/or assigns, manufactured, bottled, packaged, and/or distributed the beverage with a rodent sealed inside. 21. The beverage at issue was manufactured, bottled, packaged, sealed, and/or distributed by Arizona Beverages and US Beverage in a defective condition because it deviated in a material way from Arizona Beverages' and US Beverage's specifications and/or from otherwise identical units manufactured to the same manufacturing specifications. 22. Manufactured, bottled, and sealed beverages (that have been contaminated), including "Arizona Green Tea with Ginseng and Honey" beverages, such as the one at issue with the sealed rodent inside, are unreasonably dangerous, more dangerous than the Plaintiff could expect, and more dangerous than the ordinary consumer in the community could expect about the characteristic of such manufactured, bottled, and sealed beverages. 23. After the beverage was manufactured, bottled, packaged, and sealed by Arizona Beverages and US Beverage, it reached the Plaintiff and was consumed by Mr. Ebacher without undergoing any substantial change. 24. Arizona Beverages and US Beverage expected the beverage would reach its ultimate consumer without undergoing any substantial change after it was manufactured, bottled, and sealed. 25. The defects in the beverage, and the acts and omissions of the Defendants, were the legal and proximate cause of the injury, trauma, and damage suffered by the Plaintiff. As such, Arizona Beverages and US Beverage are strictly liable for the manufacturing, bottling, and distribution of the beverage at issue COUNT 3 – Breach of Warranties 26. Plaintiff adopts, incorporates, and re-states all allegations set forth above. 27. At all relevant times, Arizona Beverages and US Beverage were merchants with respect to the beverage at issue. At all relevant times, Arizona Beverages and US Beverage manufactured, packaged, distributed, and sold the beverage at issue as “good” within the meaning of the relevant statutory provisions. 28. At all relevant times, Arizona Beverages and US Beverage impliedly and expressly warranted that the beverage in question was safe and fit for human consumption. Contrary to these representations, the beverage that reached and was consumed by the Plaintiff contained a rodent inside of the can, thereby breaching the aforementioned warranties and causing the Plaintiff injury, damage, and loss. 29. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff hereby seeks compensatory damages from the Defendants in an amount to be determined by the fact-finder, as well as post and pre-judgment interest, and costs, as well as whatever other and/or additional relief the Plaintiff may be entitled to and/or that the Court may deem appropriate. Plaintiff seeks an award of damages in an amount less than Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of costs and interest. Dated this, the 2nd of January, 2026. Respectfully submitted, By: ________________________________ Ashley Roberts Webb, OBA # 20127 Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison, and Lewis, P.C. 502 West 6th Street Tulsa, OK 74119 918-587-3161 - Phone 888-399-1873 - Fax [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED. ATTORNEY'S LIEN CLAIMED.