The Ninth Circuit has granted an en banc rehearing of its September 2017 decision to block a San Francisco ordinance requiring health warnings on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) on the grounds that it unduly burdened and chilled speech protected by the First Amendment. Am. Beverage Ass’n. v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 16-16072 (9th Cir., entered January 29, 2018). The September ruling overturned a 2016 district court decision determining that the city’s interest in public health and safety was a reasonable basis to enforce the ordinance, which required black-box warning labels on all advertising for SSBs that could take up as much as 20 percent of the advertising space. In addition, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to Philadelphia’s SSB tax that claims the 1.5 cent-per-ounce tax violates state law; the challengers allege that because the tax is levied on distributors and ultimately borne by…
Category Archives 3rd Circuit
A New Jersey federal court has denied class certification to a group of consumers alleging that Tropicana Pure Premium orange juice was mislabeled and misbranded because the maker adds natural flavoring to the product in violation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's standard of identity for pasteurized orange juice. In re Tropicana Orange Juice Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 11-7382 (D.N.J., entered January 22, 2018). The court ruled that the plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment, express warranty and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act claims required individualized proof; thus, individual issues predominated over those of the class. In addition, the plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that the proposed class was ascertainable—in particular, the court found, it was unclear whether any of the “dozens, if not hundreds of retailers” could confirm with certainty whether they possessed consumer data for the class period. If a consumer purchased the juice from a retailer that…
A former employee has filed a discrimination lawsuit alleging Five Guys Operations paid female employees less than similarly situated male employees, echoing a similar lawsuit she filed in 2016. Finefrock v. Five Guys Operations, LLC, No. 17-2214 (M.D. Pa., filed December 1, 2017). The plaintiff asserts that after she and two other female general managers confronted executives about the alleged pay disparity, she was placed on a performance improvement plan and later fired. Alleging violations of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the plaintiffs seek class certification, damages, back and front pay and attorney’s fees.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and the National Consumers League have filed a joint motion to stay a lawsuit intended to compel the agency to implement the delayed menu labeling rule required by the Affordable Care Act. Ctr. for Sci. in the Pub. Interest v. Price, No. 17-1085 (D.D.C., filed September 15, 2017). FDA has agreed to: (i) confirm in the Federal Register on or before December 31, 2017, that the compliance date of the rule is May 7, 2018; (ii) publish draft or final guidance by December 31, 2017; and (iii) announce by “rule, guidance, public statement, publically-available document, or otherwise,” if the compliance date could or will be extended past May 2018. If FDA fails to meet those terms, the advocacy groups may move for, and FDA will not oppose, expedited hearing of the lawsuit. Additional details appear…
A New Jersey man has filed a lawsuit against a produce supplier for its role in a Salmonella Kiambu outbreak in 12 states linked to Mexican papayas that has sickened 47 people and reportedly caused one death. Colon v. Grande Produce, No. 17-5458 (D.N.J., filed July 26, 2017). The plaintiff alleges that he fell ill in June 2017 after consuming a papaya imported by Grande Produce and was later diagnosed with Salmonella-induced illness. Claiming strict product liability, negligence and breach of warranties, the plaintiff seeks damages and attorney’s fees. On July 26, Grande Produce announced it had issued a limited recall of Caribeña Maradol papayas distributed between July 10- 19, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are warning consumers to avoid all Mexican Maradol papayas regardless of the source. An FDA recall notice stated, “The FDA notes that there are…
A federal court has given preliminary approval to a class action settlement in which Cracker Barrel restaurants will develop a disability-access compliance policy for parking facilities at its locations. Heinzl v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, No. 14-1455 (W.D. Pa., order entered May 15, 2017). The settlement agreement requires Cracker Barrel to develop a survey form to assess whether the parking facilities at all of its locations comply with the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act Standards For Accessible Design. The company will then assess and ensure that parking at the 107 locations identified by the plaintiff are brought into compliance. The agreement also includes annual reporting and monitoring provisions. The court will accept objections to the settlement from members of the class until July 13, 2017, and hold a fairness hearing in August. Issue 635
Kraft Heinz Foods faces a trade-secret suit alleging it distributed documents containing confidential and proprietary drawings and specifications for plastic caps created by one of its long-time vendors. AptarGroup, Inc. v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., No. 17521 (W.D. Pa., filed April 21, 2017). AptarGroup argues that Kraft distributed engineering and customer drawings providing detailed specifications for its bottle cap and closure designs documents after removing Aptar’s logos and confidentiality warnings. Aptar also asserts that among other disclosures, Kraft released specifications for its “breakthrough” snap-top cap used for Heinz’ inverted, top-down ketchup bottles. The complaint alleges that previous disclosures have included only “one or two ornamental designs, with no detailed specifications, and that Aptar notified Kraft of their breach of contract and asked Kraft to demand the return of the confidential information from all recipients. Claiming trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract, Aptar seeks a temporary restraining order, injunctive relief,…
A Pennsylvania federal court has dismissed without prejudice a consumer lawsuit alleging Herr Foods Inc. labels its snack products as free from added preservatives despite containing citric acid. Hu v. Herr Foods, Inc., No. 165037 (E.D. Pa., order entered April 24, 2017). Additional information on the complaint appears in Issue 609 of this Update. Herr moved for a judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the citric acid in its products was not serving as a preservative. The court dismissed the claim for unjust enrichment but granted leave to amend claims for alleged violations of New York laws governing deceptive acts and practices, noting that the deficiency “is a lack of allegations supporting plaintiff’s conclusory statement that citric acid functions as a preservative in the products, which plaintiff could remedy by pleading appropriate supporting facts.” Issue 632
The plaintiff in a purported class action asserting that Herr Foods Inc. mislabels its packaged snacks as “natural” has filed a motion to disqualify defense counsel, alleging the attorney repeatedly made “extortionate threats” and committed professional misconduct. Whitaker v. Herr Foods, Inc., No. 16-2017 (E.D. Penn., motion filed December 14, 2016). The plaintiff’s motion follows Herr Foods’ motion for summary judgment, which asserted that the plaintiff could not possibly have purchased the products he claimed and that he is “a wholly inadequate lead plaintiff” because of “his faulty memory,” “his lengthy history of felony convictions involving theft and dishonesty and his potential mental health problems.” The plaintiff’s motion for disqualification alleges the defense attorney told the plaintiff that Herr Foods directed him to file for sanctions and refer the plaintiff to the district attorney’s office for an attempted criminal extortion investigation. “If you would like to talk about an agreement…
Castle Cheese Inc. President Michelle Myrter has reportedly been sentenced to three years of probation, 200 hours of community service at a food bank and a $5,000 fine for misdemeanor charges of food adulteration for selling “100% Parmesan” cheese containing high levels of substitutes, including cellulose. Following a federal investigation and a raid on company facilities, Myrter pleaded guilty to the charges in February 2016. Additional details appear in Issue 596 of this Update. See Bloomberg, October 11, 2016. Issue 619
