Oral argument in litigation over whether the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) properly deregulated a genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa seed took place before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 27, 2010. Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475 (U.S.). The Ninth Circuit imposed a ban on use of the GE seed until the USDA completes an environmental impact statement that accounts for potential contamination of conventional alfalfa crops. While several justices questioned the appellate court’s authority to fully ban the product’s sale, Justice Antonin Scalia contended that GE crop planting “doesn’t even destroy the current plantings of non-genetically engineered alfalfa. This is not the end of the world. It really isn’t. The most it does is make it difficult for those farmers who want to cater to the European market, which will not accept genetically engineered alfalfa.” According to press reports, environmentalists and agribusiness, watching the case closely, filed…
Category Archives Litigation
A putative class action has been filed against Kellogg USA alleging that, by calling its cereal “Froot” Loops® and including “pictures of brightly colored cereal made to resemble fruit” and actual fruit on product packaging, the company is deceiving the reasonable consumer who is led to believe the cereal contains fruit. Werbel v. Kellogg USA, No. 10-1660 (N.D. Cal., filed April 19, 2010). The named plaintiff relies on a Strategic Alliance for Healthy Food and Activity Environments study which purportedly revealed that this cereal, like many others, contains no fruit whatsoever despite packaging and advertising suggesting its presence. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of California consumers who purchased the product in the four years preceding the lawsuit’s filing; he alleges unlawful, unfair and deceptive advertising and promotion in violation of the state’s Business & Professions Code , intentional misrepresentation, breach of implied warranties, and violations of the Consumers Legal…
After less than two hours of deliberation, an Arkansas jury has reportedly awarded 12 rice farmers nearly $48 million in compensatory and punitive damages for the 2006 contamination of conventional rice stocks with a genetically modified (GM) strain. The farmers alleged that Europe and Japan stopped importing U.S. rice after the contamination became known, causing a precipitous drop in the price for their crops. Most of the award against Bayer CropScience was punitive; litigation against the company is pending in a number of other states. This jury verdict, reached on April 15, 2010, tops a $1 million award rendered against the company by another Alabama jury in March. Information about that verdict can be found in issue 341 of this Update. See Associated Press, April 15, 2010.
More than 200 relatives of Colombians allegedly killed or “disappeared” by members of an organization designated by the United States as a “Global Terrorist” in 2001 have filed a lawsuit under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) against Chiquita Brands International, Inc., alleging that the company’s illegal financial support of the organization was responsible for their injuries. Montes v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., No. 10-60573 (S.D. Fla., filed April 14, 2010). Represented by Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, the plaintiffs bring the same types of claims that have been raised in other ATCA lawsuits filed against the company, which pleaded guilty to making the illegal payments to purportedly protect its banana plantation operations. Additional information about these cases can be found in issue 342 of this Update. The plaintiffs here, identified by name, seek compensatory and punitive damages.
A putative class action has been filed against individual plant managers and human resources personnel responsible for hiring employees at 16 Perdue Farms, Inc. facilities in Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) in the hiring of illegal immigrants. Walters v. McMahen, No. 10-257 (M.D. Ala., filed March 22, 2010). The named plaintiffs seek to represent a class of legally employed workers whose wages were allegedly depressed because of the illegal scheme to hire at “extremely low wages” hundreds of employees who were in this country illegally. The plaintiffs also seek treble damages, preliminary and permanent injunctions, attorney’s fees, and costs. Among other matters, the plaintiffs allege that the illegal hiring scheme consisted of (i) “hiring workers who have previously been employed at Perdue under different identities”; (ii) hiring workers known to be using false identity documents; (iii) “hiring workers who cannot speak…
A group of insurance companies has sued another group of insurers, seeking a declaration that the defendants are also required to indemnify and defend flavoring companies that have been named as defendants in lawsuits by former microwave popcorn- and candy-plant employees alleging injuries from exposure to diacetyl. Arrowood Indem. Co. v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co., No. 10600881 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed April 7, 2010). While the plaintiffs anticipate that additional diacetyl exposure lawsuits will be filed, they allege that they have been defending, subject to a reservation of rights, seven cases already filed in Illinois, Missouri, Montana, and Ohio. The plaintiffs contend that the defendants have either wrongfully denied any coverage obligations or refused to respond to requests for contribution to the litigation defense or indemnity costs. Seeking declaratory relief, the plaintiffs also ask for damages, attorney’s fees, interest, and costs.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse employees in Alabama adequately alleged that their employers “encouraged or induced an alien to reside in the United States, and either knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that alien’s residence here was illegal,” thus stating the predicate act needed to bring a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Edwards v. Prime, Inc., No. 09-11699 (11th Cir., decided April 9, 2010). So ruling, the court reinstated the plaintiffs’ RICO claim against the parent company; its Birmingham, Alabama, franchisee; and the franchise owner and operator. The court did not reverse trial court rulings dismissing wage-related claims and claims of discrimination or retaliation. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants knowingly hired and employed illegal aliens, allowing them to work under the names of former Ruth’s Chris employees who were U.S. citizens and providing them with the former…
A federal court in Kansas has dismissed a putative class action filed against Applebee’s International, Inc. and Weight Watchers International, Inc., finding that the claims raised under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) were not sufficiently alleged. Shepard v. Applebee’s Int’l, Inc., No. 08-2416 (D. Kan., decided April 7, 2010). Details about the litigation, filed by a different named plaintiff, appear in issue 274 of this Update. The complaint alleged that the companies misrepresent the fat and calorie information in the dishes on the restaurateur’s “healthy” Weight Watchers® menu. The court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ state law claims as preempted by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, and sustained in part a motion to dismiss their RICO claims. Thereafter, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining RICO claim, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to allege “racketeering activity” because they did not…
According to news sources, a federal court in New Jersey has dismissed putative class claims filed by a vegan advocacy organization on behalf of state residents alleging consumer fraud against companies that sell hot dogs and processed meats. The Cancer Project, identified as an affiliate of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), had asked the court to order companies such as Nathan’s Famous, Kraft Foods/Oscar Mayer, Sara Lee, ConAgra Foods, and Marathon Enterprises, to warn consumers that “Consuming hot dogs and other processed meats increases the risk of cancer.” The case was filed in a state court in July 2009; more information is available in issue 312 of this Update. A spokesperson for the American Meat Institute praised the court’s action and reportedly said, “Meat products are regulated and inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and bear the federal government’s seal of inspection, showing they are wholesome and…
A federal court in Illinois has dismissed putative class claims alleging that Denny’s Corp. fails to inform consumers that some of its menu items contain excessive levels of salt. Ciszewski v. Denny’s Corp., No. 09-5355 (N.D. Ill., decided April 7, 2010). Additional information about the case can be found in issue 318 of this Update. The court determined that the named plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a violation of the state’s consumer fraud statute because he failed to identify any particular deceptive communication generated by Denny’s. Indeed, plaintiff made clear that his claim was based on alleged deceptive omissions. Because Illinois law requires “some communication from the defendant, either a communication containing a deceptive misrepresentation or one with a deceptive omission,” the court ruled that he had “failed to plead the circumstances constituting the fraud with sufficient particularity.” With the fraud claim dismissed, the court also dismissed derivative unjust enrichment…
