A New York plaintiff has filed a proposed class action against Dunkin’ Brands alleging the chain’s "Angus Steak" breakfast sandwiches contain beef patties rather than Angus steak. Chen v. Dunkin’ Brands, No. 17-3808 (E.D.N.Y., filed June 25, 2017). The complaint alleges that the restaurant’s “Angus Steak and Egg Sandwich” and “Angus Steak and Egg Snack N’ Go Wrap” do not contain “steak” but instead a beef patty of “minced meat which contains ‘fillers and binders.’” Claiming violations of state consumer-protection laws and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, breach of warranties and negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff seeks class certification, disgorgement, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 640
Category Archives 2nd Circuit
The makers of Sensible Portions Garden Veggie Straws face a proposed class action alleging the company misrepresented the vegetable content and nutritional value of the product. Solak v. Hain Celestial Grp., No. 17-0704 (N.D.N.Y., filed June 29, 2017). The plaintiffs assert that Garden Veggie Straws are marketed as containing “garden grown potatoes [and] ripe vegetables” and display tomatoes, potatoes and spinach on the packaging, but the first ingredients listed are “potato starch, potato flour, corn starch, tomato paste and spinach powder.” In addition, the plaintiffs assert that while tomatoes and spinach are “excellent sources” of vitamins A and C, Garden Veggie Snacks contain no vitamin A and only two percent of the recommended daily amount (RDA) of vitamin C. The complaint further alleges that the snacks are advertised as containing 30 percent less fat than “the leading potato chip," but a single serving of Lay’s Classic potato chips apparently contains…
Diageo has filed a trademark-infringement and dilution lawsuit against a competitor that allegedly mimicked Diageo’s Bulleit® bottle shape and labeling. Diageo N. Am. V. W.J. Deutsch & Sons, No. 17-4259 (S.D.N.Y., filed June 6, 2017). Diageo asserts that Bulleit® is sold in a “distinctive canteen-shaped bottle featuring embossed lettering” on the label, meant to “evoke the rugged look and feel of the American Frontier.” The complaint alleges that after W.J. Deutsch bought the Redemption whiskey product line, it redesigned the products to have a “clear canteen-shaped glass bottle,” an embossed brand name and a cork bottle cap with a black top. Claiming trademark and trade dress infringement and dilution, Diageo seeks injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 638
A New York federal court has denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement and trade dress suit filed by candy maker The Topps Co. alleging that a competitor copied its Juicy Drop lollipop. The Topps Co. v. Koko’s Confectionery & Novelty, Inc., No. 16-5954 (S.D.N.Y., order entered June 7, 2017). Topps alleged that Koko’s Squeezy Squirt Pop copied a design that allows the user to spray a lollipop with flavored liquid using a two-chamber mechanism; further, Koko’s used a similar logo, font and color on the packaging and similar names for the candies’ flavors, the complaint asserted. The court’s decision followed oral arguments over whether the positioning of the chambers of the mechanism relative to the user was infringing. Topps’ attorney reportedly told the court, “It can’t be the law that just because you hold it at 90 degrees, it’s not an infringement.” See Law360, June 6, 2017. …
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed a lower court’s dismissal of a proposed class action alleging Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. overcharges for prepackaged foods. John v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., No. 16-0986 (2nd Cir., order entered June 2, 2017). The plaintiff alleged that he routinely purchased prepackaged foods at two Whole Foods stores in Manhattan but learned that a New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) investigation had found systematic overcharging for some foods. Details on the lower court’s dismissal appear in Issue 596 of this Update. The Second Circuit held that the lower court dismissed the case prematurely because the plaintiff did not need to prove the accuracy of the DCA report or defend its methodology at the pleading stage; he was required only to plausibly allege that he overpaid for at least one product, which satisfies the “low threshold” required…
A proposed slack-fill class action against Harry & David LLC was dismissed after the parties voluntarily dismissed the action. Brown v. Harry & David LLC, No. 17-0999 (S.D.N.Y., stipulation filed May 22, 2017). The stipulation did not explain the reason for dismissal but stipulated that it was dismissed “with prejudice against the Defendant.” The plaintiff had alleged that 10-ounce containers of Moose Munch Milk Chocolate, Dark Chocolate, Classic Caramel and Cinnamon Maple Pecan popcorn mix were underfilled by as much as 43 percent. Issue 636
Five public advocacy groups have filed suit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking to vacate FDA’s “Substances Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) rule, which allegedly allows “potentially unsafe food additives to be used in the food supply (human and animal) without FDA review, approval, oversight, or knowledge, in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).” Ctr. for Food Safety v. Price, No. 173833 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 22, 2017). The plaintiffs argue that the GRAS rule allows manufacturers to certify that a substance is GRAS without notice to FDA or the public, although the rule gives them the option to notify the agency about certification. However, they allege, the Food Additives Amendment to the FDCA requires food additives to go through an FDA approval process. FDA allowed manufacturers to begin using the proposed rule’s optional notification…
Five Guys has moved to dismiss an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complaint from a blind plaintiff allegedly unable to use the burger chain’s website, arguing that the plaintiff cannot prove she was denied access to a “place of public accommodation” because the statute is limited to physical facilities. Marett v. Five Guys Enters, No. 17-0788 (S.D.N.Y., memorandum filed May 15, 2017). The plaintiff points to a federal circuit split on the issue and has asked a New York federal court to follow the Second Circuit, which has held that the ADA guarantees “more than mere physical access” and that the “website is a service of the physical location.” The plaintiff claims that Five Guys’ website, which allows online ordering in addition to general restaurant and menu information, is inaccessible to blind patrons despite the existence of “readily available technological solutions.” Issue 635
Two putative class actions allege that Trader Joe’s “Black Truffle Flavored” olive oil and Monini’s “White Truffle Flavored” olive oil are flavored with synthetic chemicals rather than truffles. Brumfield v. Trader Joe’s, No. 17-3239 (S.D.N.Y, filed May 2, 2017); Jessani v. Monini N. Am., No. 17-3257 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 2, 2017). The plaintiffs argue that the products are sold for significantly more—34 percent more for Trader Joe’s and 459 percent more for Monini—than olive oil without additional flavoring. Claiming violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state consumer protection statutes, the plaintiffs seek class certification, an injunction, damages, restitution and attorney’s fees. Issue 633
The Second Circuit has upheld the $50 million settlement of an alleged milk price-fixing conspiracy, holding that “[b]y their nature, settlements are compromises that do not provide either side with all that they might have hoped to obtain in litigation.” Haar v. Allen, No. 161944 (2d Cir., order entered April 18, 2017). The class action asserted that Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Dairy Marketing Services and Dean Foods Co. conspired to suppress competition and fix prices of raw milk in the Northeast. The appellants argued that the settlement was the result of collusion between class counsel and opposing counsel and that members of the class were coerced into participation. The Second Circuit disagreed, finding the appellants confused “counsel’s willingness to negotiate in good faith toward a settlement with collusion,” noting that the district court found no evidence of impropriety after a lengthy hearing into claims of misconduct. The court also…
