A Florida resident has filed a complaint on behalf of a putative class against Anheuser-Busch Cos. (AB), claiming that since the company began producing Beck’s Beer in the United States in 2012, it has misled consumers into believing that the product is still imported from Germany where it was made with quality ingredients for more than 225 years. Marty v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 13-23656 (S.D. Fla., filed October 9, 2013). According to the complaint, external packaging material does not indicate that the product is brewed in the United States with domestic ingredients, including Missouri River water. Rather, the external packaging for six- and 12-packs allegedly states that the product is “German Quality” beer “brewed under the German Purity Law of 1516” and that it “Originated in Bremen, Germany.” Individual bottles, however, state “in obscure white text on a silver background, ‘Product of USA—Brauerei Beck & Co.—St. Louis, MO.—12 FL. OZ.’”…
Category Archives 11th Circuit
On behalf of current and former Benihana chefs, a former chef has filed an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) alleging that the company forced chefs to work off the clock without compensation, illegally deducted from the chefs’ tips to provide tips to employees not entitled to share them and harassed or fired the chefs if they complained about the practices. Kim v. Benihana Nat’l Corp., No. 13-62061 (S.D. Fla., filed September 20, 2013). Alleging unpaid overtime or minimum wages in the alternative, illegal tip deductions and retaliation, the plaintiff seeks an order requiring notice to all Benihana chefs, declaratory relief, damages, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.
A Florida resident has filed a putative statewide class action against Gruma Corp., alleging that the company falsely advertises its Mission® Restaurant Style Tortilla chip products as “all natural” when they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Griffith v. Gruma Corp., No. 13-80791 (S.D. Fla., filed August 12, 2013). Alleging violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and contending that her claims “mirror the labeling, packaging, and advertising requirements mandated by federal regulations and laws,” the plaintiff claims that the products are misbranded and the labels are false and misleading because GMOs are not natural and she understood that product representation to mean that the chips contained no GMO ingredients. Alleging damages in excess of $5 million, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, actual damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest.
A federal court in Georgia has issued an order continuing the criminal trial against former Peanut Corp. of America officials and employees, including owner Stewart Parnell, until February 10, 2014. United States v. Parnell, No. 12-12 (M.D. Ga., order entered August 15, 2013). The company was the source of a nationwide Salmonella outbreak in 2009, and the 76-count indictment charges four individuals with conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, obstruction of justice and other counts related to the distribution of adulterated and misbranded food. Details about the indictment appear in Issue 472 of this Update.
A Florida-based import-export company has filed for Chapter 7 protection in bankruptcy court, listing more than $204 million in liabilities from litigation over its role in the import from China of powdered milk contaminated with melamine. In re Exim Brickell, LLC, No. 13-28502 (U.S. Bankruptcy Ct., S.D. Fla., filed August 3, 2013). Exim Brickell, LLC declared $300 in office furniture as its only asset. According to a news source, the 2008 tainted Chinese milk scandal, which affected hundreds of thousands of children in that country and killed six, resulted n verdicts and legal fees against the company as a result of litigation involving a Venezuelan company that recently won an appeal in their breach of contract dispute. See Law360, August 7, 2013. In a related development, a new milk contamination scandal has developed in China over whey protein concentrate potentially contaminated with the C. botulinum bacterium. The dairy farm near…
A federal court in Georgia has overruled the government’s objections to Stewart Parnell’s representation by attorney Kenneth Hodges in the defense of criminal charges arising from a Salmonella outbreak allegedly traced to Parnell’s former company, Peanut Corp. of America. United States v. Parnell, 13-12 (M.D. Ga., order entered May 30, 2013). Because the government’s motion was sealed, further details about the objections are unknown. According to the court, Parnell “knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to object to Hodges’ potential or actual conflict.” Additional information about the criminal charges appears in Issue 472 of this Update.
A federal court in Florida has determined that a putative statewide class is not preempted under federal law from claiming that the presence of genetically modified (GM) corn in Campbell Soup Co. vegetable soups renders its “100% Natural” labeling representations false. Krzykwa v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 12-62058 (S.D. Fla., order entered May 24, 2013). The court also refused to dismiss the claims under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. In the original complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he purchased two soup products with GM corn. Their labels had been pre-approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) because they also contained chicken and the agency has pre-approval authority as to these products. Campbell argued that USDA’s seal of approval preempted state law-based labeling-related claims. Later complaint amendments changed the products at issue to vegetarian soups whose labels are under the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) regulatory purview and do not require pre-approval.…
A federal court in Georgia considering the criminal charges filed against former Peanut Corp. of America owner Stewart Parnell has denied his request for the return of his passport “for purposes of employment-related international travel.” United States v. Parnell, No. 13-12 (M.D. Ga., order entered April 26, 2013). Parnell apparently surrendered his passport as a condition of his pretrial release. Parnell and company managers were charged in a 76-count indictment over a nationwide Salmonella outbreak in 2009. Additional information about the charges appears in Issue 472 of this Update. According to the court, Parnell was allowed to be released “on an unsecured $100,000 bond with no pretrial supervision by the U.S. Probation Office,” and, because he did not show that he cannot find employment within the United States and no other changes have taken place since the conditions were set, the court had no basis for returning the passport.
Since the federal government filed a 76-count indictment against the owner and managers of Peanut Corp. of America, the source of a nationwide Salmonella outbreak in 2009, the defendants have entered not guilty pleas and been released on bonds ranging from $25,000 to $100,000. United States v. Parnell, No. 13-12 (M.D. Ga., Albany Div., filed February 15, 2013). Additional details about the charges appear in Issue 472 of this Update. The court has also entered orders designating the case as complex and excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act, as well as setting a scheduling conference for April 22, 2013.
A company that makes and sells a proprietary blend of purported “wellness” herbs as part of its line of gourmet coffee, teas and hot chocolates has sued one of its former independent business owners/operators (IBOs) alleging, among other matters, disparagement, breach of a confidential performance agreement and non-competition clause, and the misappropriation of trade secrets. SereniGy Global, Inc. v. Mendoza, No. 13-08243CA04 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Cir., Dade Cty., filed March 6, 2013). According to the complaint, the company relies on a network of IBOs to market and advertise its products and signed a performance agreement with the defendant to do so in March 2012. By October, the company allegedly “received information that Defendant had been making slanderous, derogatory and disparaging remarks about Plaintiff and its CEO in violation” of the agreement, was “divulging confidential information to a third-party,” and “had been disloyal and involved in moral turpitude by advising…
