According to news sources, the Center for Food Safety, which lost its challenge to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) decision to deregulate without restriction genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa, plans to appeal the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A federal court in California determined on January 5, 2012, that the law does not require the agency to “account for the effects of cross-pollination on other commercial crops” in assessing whether a new crop poses risks. U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti also reportedly said that USDA lacks the authority to require a buffer zone between GE crops and conventional or organic crops. Noting that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved the use of glyphosate on Roundup Ready® alfalfa, Conti further observed, “If plaintiffs’ allegations are true, then it is disturbing that EPA has yet to assess the effects of glyphosate on most of the species found near…
Category Archives 11th Circuit
A federal court in Alabama has granted in part a motion to stay discovery in litigation alleging that an orange juice maker misrepresented that its product is not made from juice concentrate, but is rather “100% pure Florida squeezed.” Leftwich v. TWS Mktg. Group, Inc., No. 11-1879 (N.D. Ala., order entered December 12, 2011). The court will allow discovery as to “general personal jurisdiction” over the non-resident beverage maker to proceed, while staying discovery as to all other matters. Residents of Indiana and Alabama brought the putative class action after the Food and Drug Administration warned the company in November 2010 that its labeling violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. According to the court, if jurisdiction over the defendant is lacking, it will dismiss the Indiana plaintiff, “leaving [the Alabama plaintiff] to proceed only on the count of unjust enrichment—which itself is still subject for consideration in [the…
A federal court in Georgia has determined that it has personal jurisdiction over a Michigan food-packaging company that was sued as a third party defendant in litigation over a recalled baby food product. IPN USA Corp. v. Nurture, Inc., No. 11-501 (N.D. Ga., decided December 12, 2011). A Food and Drug Administration investigation apparently concluded that the third-party defendant (Liquid) had violated agency regulations on the manufacture of acidified and acid food products. While the baby food manufacturer (Nurture) allegedly sustained millions in damages in the recall, it was the packaging supplier (IPN) that brought the lawsuit against Nurture for breach of contract. According to the court, Liquid had sufficient contacts with Georgia for the court to exercise jurisdiction over the company. For purposes of packaging Nurture’s baby food, Liquid had purchased a machine, packaging supplies and other equipment from IPN’s Georgia-based entity, which referred a “significant number” of prospective customers…
A federal court in Florida has redefined a plaintiffs’ class in deceptive advertising litigation against the company that claims its Yo-Plus® yogurt provides digestive health benefits. Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc., No. 09-60412 (S.D. Fla., order entered December 2, 2011). While the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the class certification decision, it remanded the case for the lower court to redefine the class to omit any reference to plaintiffs’ reliance on company claims, which reliance need not be proved under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Additional information about the Eleventh Circuit ruling appears in Issue 388 of this Update. The class will now be defined as “all persons who purchased Yo-Plus in the State of Florida until the date notice is first provided to the class.”
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…
A federal court in Florida has dismissed with prejudice most of the claims asserted in a putative class action alleging that “percent fat free” labels on the packages of deli meats are misleading and deceptive. Kuenzig v. Kraft Foods, Inc., No. 11-838 (Tampa Div., decided September 12, 2011). Additional information about the case appears in Issue 391 of this Update. The court found all but one of the plaintiff’s claims preempted by federal food-labeling law and also found that all but one of his claims failed to state a claim because they were frivolous or disingenuous. As to defendant Hormel Foods Corp., the plaintiff had alleged that while the company’s labels do not indicate the number of calories per serving next to the “percent fat free” claim on the front of its product packaging, the labels are “somehow misleading by association, since Hormel’s products are on grocery shelves next to Kraft’s products.”…
Two putative class actions alleging that companies making and selling extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) sell their products at a premium despite their failure to meet certain EVOO standards have been dismissed by a federal court in Florida because the plaintiffs did not adequately plead their claims under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009). Meyer v. Colavita USA, Inc., No. 10-61781, Nachio v. Am. Rice Inc., No. 10-61793 (S.D. Fla., decided September 13, 2011). The defendants claimed in their motions to dismiss that the complaints were based on a flawed UC Davis study that analyzed a small sample of olive oil purchased in California and that the plaintiffs failed to either allege that the products they purchased were not EVOO as the companies claimed or that they had been harmed. The court agreed that the UC Davis results were…
A federal court in Florida has dismissed without prejudice two putative class actions against Kraft Foods alleging that the packaging for its Oscar Mayer® deli meat products misleads consumers about their actual fat content. McDougal v. Kraft Foods, Inc., No. 11-61202; Rogel v. Kraft Foods, Inc., No. 11-61281 (S.D. Fla., decided June 23, 2011). The plaintiffs filed voluntary dismissal notices in the cases, one of which is discussed in Issue 396 of this Update. A company spokesperson reportedly indicated when the McDougal complaint was filed that the allegations were unfounded. See Law360, June 23, 2011.
Alabama and Indiana residents have filed a putative class action alleging violation of state consumer protection laws by a company that promotes its orange juice as “not from concentrate juice” and “100% pure Florida squeezed,” when it allegedly “contains orange juice concentrate and water.” Leftwich v. TWS Mktg. Group, Inc., No. 11-01879 (D. Ala., filed June 2, 2011). Seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers, the plaintiffs refer to a Food and Drug Administration letter warning the defendant that its labeling violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The plaintiffs contend that they were misled by the product labeling and that the alleged misrepresentations were a substantial factor in influencing their decisions to purchase the products. They allege a loss of money, because they were “deprived of the benefit of their bargain.” The plaintiffs allege violations of consumer protection laws, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. Claiming…
A federal judge in Florida has reportedly granted a motion for permanent injunction in a trademark infringement case involving two “never-ending” restaurant promotions. According to media sources, Darden Concepts Inc., which owns Olive Garden and Red Lobster, filed an October 2010 complaint alleging that a TGI Friday Inc. franchisee with outlets in seven states had infringed on its “never-ending pasta” and “all you can eat” shrimp slogans by advertising a “never-ending shrimp” deal. Under terms of the settlement, TGI Friday’s must halt its “never-ending” promotion, which evidently ran as 630 TV spots in anticipation of a national campaign. See Law360, June 6, 2011.
