The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reportedly issued a temporary stay of a district court order mandating the destruction of 256 acres of genetically engineered (GE) sugar beet seedlings that were, according to the lower court, planted illegally in September 2010. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 10-04038 (N.D. Cal., decided November 30, 2010). Press sources indicate that the Ninth Circuit’s postponement is scheduled to expire December 23, when the court will either allow the crop destruction to proceed or extend the stay until it can thoroughly review an appeal from the lower court order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to remedy violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by pulling the seedlings out of the ground. The seedlings were being grown to produce seed for future Roundup Ready® sugar beet crops, which are resistant to glyphosate, an ingredient in a popular herbicide. GE sugar beet critics contend…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
Two California businessmen have reportedly filed a complaint in small claims court against a Marin County restaurateur, alleging that they were sprayed with hot garlic butter from an exploding snail. Chadwick St.-O’Harra, a former law student, and Steve Righetti were apparently celebrating Righetti’s birthday at a seafood restaurant, when the escargot purportedly exploded, dousing their faces and polo shirts. The men reportedly claim that the incident caused both “humiliation” and “a sense of genuine outrage” and that the restaurateur allegedly responded with “indifference” and “friggin’ rudeness.” The two were dining on a filet-and-lobster combo and a seafood medley and did not reportedly seek immediate medical treatment, choosing instead to finish their meals. According to the restaurant owner, the incident never happened and escargot does not explode. Still, some in the industry have characterized “escargot explosion” as a “rare but periodic phenomenon” that can be attributed to air bubbles trapped inside…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., in federal court, alleging that the company has violated consumer protection laws in labeling and promoting its “Snapple® Acai Mixed Berry Red Tea Immunity” product because “no known clinical study . . . adequately supports Snapple’s claims.” Meaunrit v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, LLC, No. 10-5153 (N.D. Cal., filed November 12, 2010). Seeking to certify a class of all product purchasers, the named plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as breach of express warranty. She asks for restitution, disgorgement, damages, and attorney’s fees and costs in excess of $5 million. Plaintiff Julia Meaunrit and her counsel, Florida-licensed Howard Rubinstein, previously filed an unsuccessful class-action lawsuit in California against a food company alleging inadequate cooking instructions for its frozen pot pies. Details about that…
A federal court in California, presiding over two putative class actions alleging that I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter!®, Country Crock® and other cholesterol-free margarines were falsely advertised as nutritious, has denied a joint motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement. Red v. Unilever PLC, No. 10-00387 (N.D. Cal., order filed November 16, 2010). The court was concerned about “the waiver of certain damages claims and need for opt-out in a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) injunctive class where the proposed class received no monetary relief.” Scheduling a settlement hearing for the parties with a special master on or before December 13, 2010, the court allowed the parties to continue negotiating and expanded the special master’s authority “to negotiate a revised settlement to address the Court’s concerns.” The cases, filed in 2009, involve claims that butter-substitute makers have violated consumer protection laws by promoting their products as “healthy”…
The California Supreme Court has denied a petition for review filed by fast food restaurants seeking to overturn an intermediate appellate court ruling allowing further proceedings on claims that they violated Proposition 65 by selling grilled chicken products to consumers without appropriate warnings about carcinogens created by the cooking process. Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med. v. McDonald’s Corp., No. S186566 (Cal., decided October 27, 2010). The intermediate appellate court determined that federal law did not preempt the claims. Additional information about its ruling appears in Issue 360 of this Update.
A California court of appeals has denied the request of a former Chipotle employee to certify a class of current and former non-managerial employees alleging that the company violated labor laws by denying them meal and rest breaks. Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. B216004 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., modified opinion filed October 28, 2010). The court agreed with the defendant that California law requires that employers provide, but not ensure, that employees take breaks. The court also found no error in the trial court’s denial of class certification because the court record showed that “Chipotle did not have a universal practice with regard to breaks.” Apparently, while the company paid for meal and rest breaks, some employees declared that they always missed meal breaks, some missed meal breaks but not rest breaks, some were not denied meal breaks, and others declared their breaks were delayed or interrupted…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against the company that owns the Breyers ice cream brand, alleging violations of consumer protection laws because its 23 chocolate-flavored products are labeled “All Natural” but also contain cocoa processed with alkali. Denmon-Clark v. Conopco, Inc., No. 10-7898 (C.D. Cal., filed October 20, 2010). According to the complaint, “Breyers Ice Cream products containing alkalized cocoa are processed with potassium carbonate which is a recognized synthetic substance.” While acknowledging that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not directly regulate the use of the term “natural,” the plaintiff alleges that the agency has a policy that defines “the outer boundaries of the use of that term” and clarifies that “a product is not natural if it contains color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.” The plaintiff alleges that FDA requires products made with an “alkalization” process to include the statement “Processed with alkali.” Breyers’ website…
According to a news source, an appellate lawyer in California has submitted an amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that the state’s ballot initiative process, adopted 99 years ago, was improperly voted into law. He has asked the court to certify the question to the California Supreme Court. This issue arose in a case involving the validity of Proposition 8, a voter-approved ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage. A federal district court ruled that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. If the process that led to the adoption of Proposition 8 is ultimately overturned, it could call into question the validity of Proposition 65, which has required manufacturers and retailers to warn consumers if their products contain chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm. The state has been considering in recent months how to effectively apply the law to the food industry.…
A federal court in California has dismissed on preemption and standing grounds a number of state-law claims against The Quaker Oats Co. in a lawsuit alleging that the company falsely advertises its Chewy Bars® as containing “0 grams trans fat” when the ingredient list labeling includes hydrogenated vegetable oil. Chacanaca v. The Quaker Oats Co., No. 10-0502 (N.D. Cal., decided October 14, 2010). So ruling, the court lifted a discovery stay order and scheduled a case management conference for December 16, 2010. The defendant sought judgment on the pleadings at the outset of the action, arguing that “the doctrines of express preemption, primary jurisdiction, and Article III standing warrant immediate dismissal of the entire case.” The court agreed to dismiss all state-law deception claims involving the “0 grams trans fat” statement, the “good source” of calcium and fiber statements and a statement that the product contains whole grain oats but lacks…
A federal court in California has approved a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in litigation involving allegedly fraudulent claims that Kellogg Co.’s Frosted Mini-Wheats® cereal “was clinically shown to improve children’s attentiveness by nearly 20%.” Dennis v. Kellogg Co., No. 09-1786 (S.D. Cal., decided October 14, 2010). The settlement class consists of everyone in the United States who bought the product between January 2008 and October 2009. The company has agreed to create a $2.75 million fund “to provide cash payments to class members who submit valid Claim Forms. Class members may recover the full purchase price of the cereal they purchased ($5 per box), up to three boxes.” Any funds remaining will be “distributed to appropriate charities pursuant to the cy pres doctrine.” The company will also distribute specified food items valued at $5.5 million to charities feeding the indigent and will pay the costs of…
