Category Archives 3rd Circuit

A federal court in New Jersey has granted in part the motion to dismiss filed by the Campbell Soup Co. in litigation alleging that consumers were misled by the company’s lower-sodium labels, believing they were a healthier alternative to regular soups, which allegedly contain about the same levels of sodium as the more expensive low-sodium versions. Smajlaj v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 10-1332 (D.N.J., decided March 23, 2011). The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of consumers, and named plaintiff Rosa Smajlaj has voluntarily dismissed her claims, so the suit will proceed with four other New Jersey residents as named plaintiffs. The defendant sought to dismiss the claims under the plausibility pleading standard established in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), and on the basis of federal preemption. The court determined that the claims of misleading labels were not…

Relying on the first-to-file rule, a federal court in New Jersey has transferred a putative class action alleging false advertising for a Breyers ice cream product to a federal court in California that is considering similar litigation. Catanese v. Unilever d/b/a/ Breyers, No. 10-5755 (D.N.J., decided March 28, 2011). The plaintiffs in a number of cases have alleged that ice cream containing alkalized cocoa cannot be advertised as “all natural” because alkalized cocoa powder is chemically altered. The first such case was filed in a California federal court against Ben & Jerry’s, a Unilever company, in September 2010. A nearly identical action involving Breyers products was also filed in a California federal court three days before the Catanese plaintiffs filed their complaint. According to the court, “Conducting this class action in one forum will benefit both the public and private interests by avoiding duplicative litigation.” Information about a similar case filed in…

According to news sources, a New Jersey tire salesman has filed a personal injury lawsuit in a state court against the company that makes Four Loko®, an alcoholic beverage that until late 2010 also contained caffeine; he alleges that after drinking two and one-half cans, he was taken to a hospital with heart arrhythmia. Mustica v. Phusion Projects, No. __ (N.J. Super. Ct., Atlantic Cty., filed March 16, 2011). Each can purportedly contained the equivalent of three cans of beer and the same amount of caffeine as two cups of coffee. While the maker of the energy drink apparently continues to maintain that mixing alcohol and caffeine is safe, it agreed to remove caffeine from the product in November 2010. The plaintiff claims that he consumed the beverage on a visit to Atlantic City in October, fell asleep and, on waking, had a racing heart and trouble breathing. Alleging permanent…

Adams Extract & Spice has sued Van de Vries Spice Corp. in a New Jersey federal court alleging damages in excess of $75,000 due to a 2009 spice recall involving ground red pepper allegedly contaminated with Salmonella. Adams Extract & Spice, LLC v. Van de Vries Spice Corp., No. 11-00720 (D.N.J., filed February 8, 2011). Apparently, Van de Vries sold 11,000 pounds of the spice to Adams Extract which then incorporated it into various products sold under its brand name. After learning about the contamination risk, Adams Extract issued a product recall that allegedly “resulted in significant damages to Adams Extract.” Alleging negligence by failure to comply with Food and Drug Administration standards, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and strict product liability, Adams Extract seeks compensatory damages, interest, costs, and delay damages.

A New Jersey appellate court has dismissed the second amended complaint in a putative class action filed by a man who claims that Denny’s meals contain excessive undisclosed levels of sodium in violation of the state’s Consumer Fraud Act. DeBenedetto v. Denny’s, Inc., No. A-4135-09T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div., decided January 11, 2011). The plaintiff was represented by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Additional information about the litigation appears in Issue 312 of this Update. The court agreed with the trial judge that the plaintiff’s complaint was, in essence, a product liability claim for failure to warn for which the state’s product liability law provided “a sole and exclusive remedy.” In the absence of proof of injury, the courts determined that the plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The appellate court disagreed with the plaintiff that recent state supreme court…

According to a news source, a small claims court in California has exonerated two seafood restaurant supervisors for alleged negligence in the case of the exploding escargot. More details about the case appear in Issue 373 of this Update. In a two-page ruling, the court apparently determined, “There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever on what caused the escargot to spontaneously splatter grease upon being touched by the plaintiffs. There was no evidence that Seafood Peddler did not exercise reasonable care in the preparation or service of the escargot.” The court also opined that diners should have a “reasonable expectation” of injury “due to hot grease in orders of escargot which are prepared and served with ‘hot garlic butter.’” Pleased with the ruling, the restaurant’s owner reportedly noted that orders for escargot have surged since news about the lawsuit became public. See Marin Independent Journal, December 15, 2010. The Third Circuit Court…

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed, for the most part, with the resolution of multidistrict litigation claims against pet food manufacturers involving the melamine contamination and recall of their products in 2007. In re: Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., Nos. 08-4741 & 08-4779 (3d Cir., decided December 16, 2010). Further details about the settlement agreement appear in Issue 283 of this Update. The court determined that certification of a settlement class was appropriate and that most of the settlement’s terms were fair and reasonable. Because the district court agreed with the settlement’s cap of “purchase claims,” that is, “claims solely for reimbursement of the costs associated with the purchase of a Recalled Pet Food Product by a Settlement Class Member who has not been reimbursed for such costs to date,” without “the information necessary to evaluate the value and allocation of the Purchase Claims,” the appeals court vacated and…

Hershey Company has reportedly sued Mars for trademark infringement in a Pennsylvania federal court, alleging that colors used in the packaging for Mars’s Dove peanut-butter milk-chocolate Promises® candy is too similar to what Hershey uses for its Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups®. Mars apparently filed a preemptive suit just days earlier in a Virginia federal court, asking to dismiss the Hershey complaint. Mars reportedly contends that Hershey admits it does not have exclusive rights to package peanut-butter candies in orange wrappers and that orange is commonly used in the industry as an indicator of peanut-butter flavor. According to a news source, Hershey sent a cease-and desist letter to Mars in November 2010, stating, “It can come as no surprise to Mars that Hershey, having objected to the color of the individual Dove peanut butter chocolate wrappers and filed a counterclaim to obtain a change of that color, would have a serious problem…

Alleging that Perdue Farms Inc. misleads consumers by labeling its chicken products as “Humanely Raised,” a member of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has reportedly filed a putative class action against the company in a New Jersey court. The suit apparently claims that the company’s chickens are processed under National Chicken Council guidelines that allow “numerous inhumane practices, including painful handling and shackling of live birds . . . and egregiously inhumane slaughter practices.” The plaintiff seeks to represent all consumers who buy the company’s chicken products relying on the “alleged deceptive and misleading humane claim.” Compensatory damages and injunction relief are also sought. According to an HSUS spokesperson, “Rather than implementing humane reforms, Perdue has simply slapped ‘humanely raised’ stickers on its factory farmed products, hoping consumers won’t know the difference.” Perdue reportedly responded to the complaint by stating, “The Humane Society of the United States…

KFC franchisees have reportedly made their closing arguments before a Delaware Chancery Court in a dispute over the company’s advertising policies. They contend that 1997 amendments to the company’s corporate documents gave them the authority to propose and approve different advertising recommendations. The lawsuit was apparently filed after KFC Corp. launched an advertising campaign for grilled chicken menu offerings, which the franchisees opposed for their potential to dilute the company’s fried chicken brand. According to a news source, the franchisees argued that while they can veto funding for advertising by majority vote, this power is illusory because KFC could institute delays, thus causing a blackout that would inflict significant damage on franchisees. The company apparently countered that the franchisees do have the right to make recommendations or modifications to the company’s advertising policy and have exercised that right on several occasions. Still, the company reportedly indicated that the franchisees cannot have…

Close