U.S. attorneys in New York have filed a complaint against three veal producers for allegedly exporting meat containing vertebral column to Japan, which had just reopened its borders to U.S. imports after a two-year ban over a bovine spongiform encephalopathy (“mad cow”) scare. United States v. Atl. Veal & Lamb LLC, No. 11-1034 (E.D.N.Y., filed March 3, 2011). Under U.S.-Japan trade agreements, beef and beef products cannot contain vertebral column, and when Japanese inspectors discovered the breach, it immediately again closed its borders to U.S. beef imports, allegedly costing the U.S. livestock, beef and meat industry “at least $500 million in losses.” The prosecutors seek to enjoin the defendants from violating U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations and allege that unless enjoined, the companies “will continue to sell and offer for transportation in commerce misbranded meat and meat food products for human consumption abroad that fail to comply with [export verification]…
Category Archives 2nd Circuit
A federal district court in New York has granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Snapple Beverage Corp. in a case alleging that the company misled consumers by labeling its teas and juice drinks as “All Natural” because the company’s beverages contain high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Weiner v. Snapple Beverage Corp., No. 07-8742 (S.D.N.Y., decided January 21, 2011). The court had previously denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification but determined, despite that denial, that it could decide the merits of the summary judgment motion even though the lawsuit now failed to satisfy the requirements of original diversity jurisdiction. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs did not offer any evidence showing injury from Snapple’s “All Natural” labeling, and the court agreed. Analyzing each claim—violation of a state deceptive practices law, unjust enrichment, and breach of express and implied warranty—the court found that the plaintiffs failed to present reliable evidence that they…
According to a news source, a co-defendant in litigation alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in the northeastern U.S. milk market has filed objections to the tentative deal reached by Dean Foods Co. and the dairy farmers who filed the lawsuit. Allen v. Dairy Farmers of Am., No. __ (D. Vt., settlement reached December 24, 2010). More information about the settlement, which must be approved by a court, appears in Issue 376 of this Update. Dairy Marketing Services, LLC and a number of individual dairy farmers have also apparently opposed the settlement. The objectors contend that the settlement will result in price erosion for all dairy farmers and creates “both winners and losers in the class of dairy farmers represented by a single law firm by taking market access from one group of dairy farmers at the expense of another within the same class.” They also claim that the small settlement of…
Northeast dairy farmers have reportedly settled their price-fixing claims against Dean Foods Co. for $30 million and injunctive relief requiring the company to buy a portion of its raw milk from multiple sources. Allen v. Dairy Farmers of America, No. __ (D. Vt., settlement reached December 24, 2010). While the agreement requires court approval, it would reportedly allow some 5,000 to 10,000 farmers to file claims for monetary damages over allegations that Dean Foods would buy milk only through Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) and its affiliates in the region. According to counsel for the plaintiffs, the case will continue against DFA, to resolve claims that “the nation’s largest cooperative monopolized a level of distribution of fluid milk in the Northeast and forced dairy farmers to join DFA or its marketing affiliate [Dairy Marketing Services] to survive.” See DairyLine.com, December 24, 2010; Worcester Business Journal, December 27, 2010; and Burlington…
A federal court in New York has entered an order approving the pre-trial discovery and motions scheduling order agreed to by the individual plaintiffs remaining in the litigation alleging that fast-food marketing caused adverse health effects related to obesity. Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 02-7821 (S.D.N.Y., order filed December 15, 2010). Under the terms of the agreement, fact discovery will close November 30, 2011; expert discovery will close April 30, 2012; and briefing on motions for summary judgment will end August 30, 2012. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification in October; additional details about the ruling appear in Issue 370 of this Update.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court’s dismissal of claims filed by a 76-year-old woman who alleged that she was seriously burned when trying to remove the lid from a cup of tea she purchased at Starbucks. Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co., No. 09-4943 (2d Cir., decided November 3, 2010). The court issued a non-precedential summary order to affirm the grant of defendant’s summary judgment motion. According to the court, the district court correctly excluded the testimony of plaintiff’s experts because they were unreliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 standards. In this regard, the court stated, “[w]ithout the testimony of her expert witnesses, Moltner’s claims fail because there is no way for a reasonable juror to determine, with respect to her defective design claim, whether the risks posed by the product’s design outweighed its utility, or, with respect to her negligence claim, whether Starbucks failed to…
A judge from the U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by designation in a New York federal district court, has determined that the obesity-related claims filed in 2002 against McDonald’s Corp. cannot be pursued as a class action. Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 02-7821 (S.D.N.Y., decided October 27, 2010). Essentially, the court found that individual causation issues predominated over common ones and that, as to any common issues, the plaintiffs had failed to show that the putative class was sufficiently numerous for the court to certify an issues class. A spokesperson reportedly indicated that the company was pleased with the decision, stating, “As we have maintained throughout these proceedings, it is unfair to blame McDonald’s for this complex social problem.” Teenagers alleging obesity-related health problems claimed that they were misled by the fast food chain’s deceptive advertising into believing that the food could be consumed daily without any adverse health effects.…
Twenty-seven waiters, busboys and others at New York City’s Del Posto restaurant have reportedly filed a lawsuit against owner Mario Batali and partners Joseph and Lidia Bastianich, claiming that they were not paid a legal wage. The plaintiffs allege that the restaurant’s managers pooled workers’ tips in violation of state labor laws and wrongfully withheld a portion of the gratuities on wine and cheese sales. The tip pool was allegedly divided on the basis of a point system, and the plaintiffs also reportedly contend that staff working banquets did not get their proper share of the service charge billed to customers, instead receiving a flat fee. The suit, which is at least the third involving a Batali-owned facility, seeks back pay, unspecified damages and attorney’s fees. See msnbc.com, October 12, 2010.
Snapple Beverage Corp. has requested that a federal district court dismiss the individual claims remaining in litigation alleging that the company misled consumers by labeling beverages containing high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as “all natural.” Weiner v. Snapple Beverage Corp., No. 07-8742 (S.D.N.Y., motion filed September 17, 2010). In August 2010, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs’ request to certify a statewide class of claimants. Additional information about that order appears in Issue 363 of this Update. According to the defendant’s memorandum of law supporting its motion, while the plaintiffs “seek recovery of an alleged ‘price premium’” that they paid for the products, they (i) do not know how much they actually paid for Snapple, (ii) made no effort to determine how comparable products were priced when they purchased Snapple beverages, (iii) lack any receipt to document a Snapple purchase, (iv) “cannot recall with any certainty the price they paid…
A federal court in New York recently refused to certify a statewide class of consumers who allege that Snapple Beverage Corp. misled them by marketing its products as “all natural” when they actually contain high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Weiner v. Snapple Beverage Corp., No. 07-8742 (S.D.N.Y., order entered August 5, 2010). The court apparently determined that individual issues, such as causation, injury and damages, would predominate over common ones. According to the court, “Individualized inquiries would be required to determine, for instance whether class members were fully informed about the inclusion of HFCS in Snapple beverages, whether they believed HFCS to be natural, and whether they continued to purchase Snapple despite their beliefs concerning HFCS. Such individual issues would also dwarf any issues of law or fact common to the class.” The court also reportedly determined that the named plaintiffs did not proffer a suitable methodology for establishing causation and…
