The Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers Association (R-CALF USA) has filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in a Colorado federal court against the World Trade Organization (WTO) and U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, alleging that WTO’s determination that the U.S. Country of Origin Labeling Act (COOL) imposes discriminatory burdens on meat imported from Canada and Mexico is contrary to U.S. law and the Uruguay Round Agreements. Made in the USA Foundation, Inc. v. WTO, No. 12-2337 (D. Colo., filed September 1, 2012). Details about WTO’s ruling appear in Issue 419 of this Update. With some 5,400 members in 45 states, R-CALF USA apparently worked with Congress to pass the COOL legislation “that reserves the USA label for only cattle born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S.A.” The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs will lose income as a result of WTO’s ruling and that its members “are…
Category Archives 10th Circuit
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a 2008 E. coli outbreak involving food prepared and served at a restaurant and a catered event constituted a single occurrence under the relevant insurance policies, thus reversing a magistrate judge’s conclusion that there were two occurrences and application of the policies’ aggregate limits rather than their “per occurrence” limits. Republic Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Moore, No. 11-5075 (10th Cir., decided July 20, 2012). The outbreak apparently infected 341 individuals, and one person died. When it appeared that the policy limits would be exceeded, the insurers brought this interpleader action, requesting that the court declare that the “per occurrence” limits applied, providing $3 million in coverage. Agreeing with the insurance companies, the Tenth Circuit stated, “[h]ere, all the injuries were proximately caused by the restaurant’s ongoing preparation of contaminated food. Hence, there was but one occurrence. It does not matter that…
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., which operates 1,250 “fast-casual” restaurants throughout the United States, has sued The Kroger Co. in Colorado federal court, alleging that the grocery store chain has infringed the CHIPOTLE® trademark by using the descriptor on its spicy fried chicken take-out products. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. The Kroger Co, 12-930 (D. Colo., filed April 5, 2012). According to the complaint, Chipotle has invested “tens of millions of dollars” “to create and maintain the goodwill of its CHIPOTLE® national brand,” which evidently includes a commitment to sourcing ingredients “in the most ethical and sustainable manner possible.” In addition to claiming monetary damages, Chipotle argues that Kroger’s use of the word “Chipotle” on its chicken entrée packaging has caused “irreparable harm to the value and goodwill of Plaintiff’s CHIPOTLE® Marks, as well as irreparable harm to Chipotle’s business, goodwill and reputation.” “Kroger’s use of CHIPOTLE… can only be explained by…
A New Mexico resident has filed a putative statewide class action in federal court claiming that a company which makes one-cup coffee cartridges for Keurig® single-serve coffee machines falsely labels and markets its cartridges as fresh coffee when they are actually filled with instant coffee. Bracewell v. Sturm Foods, Inc., No. 11-01024 (D.N.M., filed November 18, 2011). Alleging violations of New Mexico and Illinois consumer fraud laws and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and costs.
POM Wonderful LLC, which has created a market for pomegranate juice beverages and other products, has sued Backside Beverages, LLC, alleging that the company has infringed POM’s trademark with its Pompis energy drink. POM Wonderful LLC v. Backside Beverages, LLC, No. 11-760 (D. Utah, filed August 22, 2011). POM’s complaint includes a comprehensive description of the actions it has taken and the $300 million it has spent to promote and protect its brand and trademarks since first introducing fruit-based beverages in 2002. According to the complaint, the defendant has tarnished POM’s registered trademarks “because ‘pompis’ is a slang Spanish term for ‘backside,’ that is, ‘backside’ of a person. In English, ‘pompis’ is equally derogatory,— combining the term POM and the term ‘pis’ which phonetically sounds like ‘piss’.” POM contends that such derogatory use of its marks intentionally trades on its goodwill “while at the same time tarnishing the POM brand.”…
An intermediate appellate court in Washington has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging part of a state law requiring the humane slaughter of livestock. Pasado’s Safe Haven v. Washington, No. 64452-1-I (Wash. Ct. App., decided July 25, 2011). The plaintiff, an animal rights advocacy organization, challenged that part of the statute which included within the “humane method” definition “a method in accordance with the ritual requirements of any religious faith whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain…” Also challenged was a provision stating that “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit, abridge, or in any way hinder the religious freedom of any person or group.” The court ruled that the plaintiff had not presented a justiciable claim because the court could not strike just part of the statute without bringing “about a result that our legislature ‘never contemplated nor intended to accomplish.’”…
A former employee of an Olathe, Kansas, waffle venue has brought a collective action against his employer alleging that it reported inaccurate tip earnings so that it would appear that his total earnings were compliant with the federal minimum wage. Spears v. Mid America Waffle House, Inc., No. 11-2273 (D. Kan., filed May 2010). Jared Spears, who was paid an hourly wage of $2.13 plus tips, contends that when he complained about the issue, he was given fewer hours to work and his wage “was further reduced by a mandatory meal credit that was deducted from his compensation whether he ate a meal or not.” He claims damages in excess of $75,000 and seeks injunctive and declaratory relief.
A coalition of food wholesalers and retailers has filed an antitrust lawsuit in a Kansas state court against egg producers and industry trade groups alleging that, by reducing the number of hens, increasing egg exports and decreasing hen lifecycles, the defendants conspired to manipulate egg prices, which have more than doubled in recent years. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. United Egg Producers, No. 10 2181 (Kan. Dist. Ct., Wyandotte Cty., filed December 23, 2010). Similar class-action lawsuits nationwide were consolidated in multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceedings in a Pennsylvania federal court; the Kansas plaintiffs apparently opted out of class to file their own claims. The petition, alleging violations of the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act, discusses the U.S. Department of Justice investigation into industry practices and relies on some documents produced during the MDL proceedings. Several settlements have apparently been reached in the MDL, and one of the defendants apparently agreed to…
Nestlé Prepared Foods Co. has filed a complaint against the suppliers of ingredients for its Lean Cuisine® frozen meals, which it was apparently forced to recall when it learned that some of the meals were contaminated with foreign, hard blue plastic pieces. Nestlé Prepared Foods Co. v. Nat’l Food Trading Corp., No. 10-1077 (D. Utah, filed October 29, 2010). According to the complaint, the plastic pieces were mixed into the sun-dried tomatoes that defendants sold to Nestlé. Customer complaints purportedly alerted Nestlé to the contamination, and “[a]t least one consumer reported an injury caused by the hard blue plastic materials.” Recalling some 880,000 pounds of frozen meals allegedly caused Nestlé to incur “substantial losses, including, but not limited to, refunds to customers, the value of the recalled meals, the value of the unusable sun dried tomatoes, cancelled orders, and the costs of shipping, storage, plant operations, and investigation, as well as…
An appeals court in New Mexico has affirmed a trial court’s decision to dismiss claims that a horse rancher’s family became ill as a result of exposure to horse feed containing an antibiotic toxic to horses. Parkhill v. Alderman-Cave Milling & Grain Co., No. 29,120 (N. M. Ct. App., decided October 6, 2010). The parties settled claims that the feed sickened or killed horses from several of the plaintiffs’ horse ranches, and the trial court dismissed claims, as a sanction for discovery abuse, that the family’s personal health was affected by exposure to the feed. The appeals court did not reach the sanctions issue, finding that the lower court properly excluded the testimony of the plaintiffs’ experts. The toxin involved was monensin, an antibiotic that is a common additive to feed for livestock, but prohibited in horse feed. The plaintiffs alleged that immediately after contact with the feed they developed skin…
