The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld in part a district court ruling that denied migrant workers’ claims that a Georgia onion farmer had improperly withheld the cost of housing and meals from their pay, reducing it below minimum wage. Ramos-Barrientos v. Bland, No. 10-13412 (11th Cir., decided October 27, 2011). While the appeals court agreed with the lower court that the farmer could receive wage credits for meal reimbursements, it reversed the summary judgment that the farmer could receive wage credits for housing provided to the workers. The court also upheld the lower court’s determination that certain fees that third-party recruiters charged the workers in Mexico could not be recovered from the farmer who was unaware of them and had not agreed by contract to pay them. The workers and the Secretary of Labor, as amicus, contended that the farmer was “not entitled to wage credits for the…
Category Archives Litigation
General Nutrition Centers Inc. and the company that makes 2:1 Protein Bars® have settled class claims filed in California alleging that the companies misbranded four flavors in the product line by “allegedly overstat[ing] their protein content and understat[ing] their sugar and carbohydrate content.” Cagle v. Anti-Aging Essentials, Inc., No. 11-02940 (C.D. Cal., motion for preliminary approval of proposed settlement filed October 17, 2011). While the companies apparently reformulated the bars and labels before the lawsuit was filed, they have agreed to comply with federal labeling laws in the future and to provide three free protein bars to class members who have been identified through online purchase records or their use of customer loyalty cards. Consumers who can prove their purchases with receipts will receive free replacement bars under the proposed settlement, if the court approves it. Consumers without proof of purchase would be able to receive buy-one-get-one free coupons for…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is representing a California woman who has sued General Mills, Inc. on behalf of a putative nationwide class of consumers who purchased the company’s Fruit Roll-Ups®, Fruit by the Foot® and Fruit Gushers® products, claiming that the company deceptively markets them as healthy and wholesome. Lam v. General Mills, Inc. No. 11-5056 (N.D. Cal., filed October 14, 2011). According to CSPI, “General Mills is basically dressing up a very cheap candy as if it were fruit and charging a premium for it.” Product labeling purportedly refers to the snacks as “fruit flavored,” “naturally flavored,” “good source of Vitamin C,” “low fat,” and “gluten free.” The complaint alleges that these claims are misleading because the snacks actually contain trans fat, added sugars, and artificial food dyes. The plaintiff also alleges that the products lack “significant amounts of real, natural fruit” and have no…
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed with prejudice consumer protection claims filed against two companies that make snack bars with extra fiber, finding the claims preempted under federal law. Turek v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-3267 (7th Cir., decided October 17, 2011). According to the court, “The disclaimers that the plaintiff wants added to the labeling of the defendants’ inulin-containing chewy bars are not identical to the labeling requirements imposed on such products by federal law, and so they are barred.” The plaintiff had sought the inclusion of information on chewy bar product labels indicating that inulin derived from chicory root “produces fewer health benefits than a product that contains only ‘natural’ fiber,” and that “inulin from chicory root should not be consumed by pregnant or lactating women.” Additional details about the complaint and the district court’s ruling dismissing the claims appear in Issues 327 and 364 of…
Granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part, a federal court in New York has allowed further proceedings on most of the claims filed by a man who alleged that consuming one to two cans of tuna daily for more than two years caused his mercury poisoning. Porrazzo v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, No. 10-4367 (S.D.N.Y., decided September 30, 2011). So ruling, the court agreed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that the Food and Drug Administration’s failure to adopt a regulation on the alleged risks of mercury in fish or warnings about that risk does not preclude the states from imposing a duty to warn. Additional information about that case appears in Issue 272 of this Update. According to his complaint, the plaintiff purchased and consumed 10 six-ounce cans of tuna fish each week from January 2006 to October 2008, at a time when the manufacturing defendant “promoted…
A federal court in Illinois has determined that a plaintiff claiming that he would not have paid a premium for a product advertised as “heart healthy,” “0 grams trans fat” and “wholesome” had he known it actually contained trans fats, has standing to pursue his false advertising claims under state law. Askin v. The Quaker Oats Co., No. 11-111 (N.D. Ill., decided October 12, 2011). Citing a recent Seventh Circuit decision in which the court found standing under similar circumstances, that is, an affirmative product representation and allegations that consumers paid more for the product than they would have had they known of its purported risks, the court ruled that alleged economic harm alone is redressable and confers standing. The court deferred ruling on the defendant’s argument that the named plaintiff in this putative class action cannot file a lawsuit under Illinois law because he is a resident of and purchased the…
The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has consolidated six actions questioning the “100% Natural” claims for Wesson oil products before a multidistrict litigation (MDL) court in California. In re: Wesson Oil Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2291 (JPML, transfer order filed October 13, 2011). The defendant requested the transfer, and while the California, Florida and New Jersey plaintiffs supported consolidation, they disagreed on the transferee district. According to the court, centralization “in the Central District of California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.” The court found, “All actions contain similar allegations against ConAgra and share factual questions regarding the labeling and marketing of Wesson oils as ‘100% Natural’ when the oils purportedly contain genetically modified plants or organisms. Little litigation activity has occurred in the actions, which were all filed within the past…
An environmental and public-health advocacy organization has filed a Proposition 65 lawsuit against numerous food and beverage producers in a California state court, alleging failure to warn the public that their baby and toddler foods and fruit juices contain lead, a chemical known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity or cancer. Envtl. Law Found. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., No. 11597384 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., filed September 28, 2011). Alleging one count of violating Proposition 65, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties of $2,500 per day for each violation of the law, as well as attorney’s fees and costs. According to the complaint, the plaintiff notified the companies about the alleged violation in 2010 and provided the required notice to the state attorney general, who is not apparently prosecuting an action involving this claim.
Arch Specialty Insurance Co. has filed a declaratory judgment action in a New York state court against a company identified as a distributor of food product ingredients, including the butter-flavoring chemical diacetyl. Arch Specialty Ins. Co. v. Citrus & Allied Essences, Ltd., No. 652670/2011 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed September 29, 2011). The insurance company contends that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify the defendant in the personal injury actions “asserted by numerous claimants against Citrus & Allied in several jurisdictions around the country.” Among other matters, the insurer claims that the events giving rise to the underlying claims did not occur during the policy period; the claims involve “damages or injuries which were expected, intended or non-fortuitous from the standpoint of Citrus & Allied”; the claims fall within a pollution exclusion clause or arise from a recall as defined by the policy; and the insured failed…
Dole Food Co. has reportedly signed a definitive settlement agreement that could conclude five U.S. lawsuits and 33 lawsuits filed in Nicaragua by banana plantation workers purportedly exposed to the agricultural chemical DBCP (1,2-Dibromo3-chloropropane). At stake are potential alleged damages in excess of $9 billion. According to Dole’s October 3, 2011, news release, the company “will not fund the settlement by making any payments until specific conditions are satisfied, including receiving a signed release from each plaintiff, dismissals of cases and judgments, and a good faith settlement determination by the Los Angeles Superior Court that is presiding over four of the U.S. cases.”
