A New Jersey federal court has transferred to California a lawsuit alleging that The Quaker Oats Co. misleads consumers with the packaging of its Maple & Brown Sugar oatmeal product because it does not contain maple syrup or maple sugar. Gates v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 16-1944 (D.N.J., order entered August 3, 2016). The complaint “makes essentially identical allegations against Quaker” as three other putative class actions pending in other federal courts, the court notes, including the first-filed case in California. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied an Illinois plaintiff’s request to consolidate the cases into multidistrict litigation, but the panel suggested that the other parties transfer their lawsuits to California to streamline the process. Quaker moved to transfer the case from New Jersey to California, and the plaintiff did not oppose; accordingly, the court granted the motion to transfer. Issue 614
Category Archives 3rd Circuit
A deaf consumer has filed a lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp. and two franchisees alleging the company discriminated against her by refusing to allow her to order from the drive-through window. Cirrincione v. Taco Bell Corp., No. 33-0001 (D.N.J., filed July 13, 2016). At one location, the plaintiff alleges she wrote her order on a piece of paper and handed it to a Taco Bell employee at the drive-through window, and a manager then “berated Plaintiff for utilizing the drive through and for placing her order at the ‘pick-up’ window” because it “interfered with the desired flow of business.” At another location, the plaintiff asserts she again wrote her order and handed it to an employee, then “the note was slipped back through the drive-through window,” the window was shut and the order was not processed, “and no Taco Bell employee communicated with Plaintiff in any way, leaving Plaintiff humiliated,…
A Delaware cheese company and two individual defendants have pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for distributing adulterated ricotta, queso fresco and fresh cheese curds in several neighboring states. U.S. v. Roos Foods, Inc., No. 16-0013 (D. Del., information filed January 22, 2016). Roos’ cheese was connected to a 2014 outbreak of Listeria that caused five adults and three newborns to contract listeriosis. The criminal information alleged the company produced the cheese in unsanitary conditions, including the “[f]ailure to clean food-contact surfaces as frequently as necessary to protect against contamination of food” and “failure to store raw materials or ingredients in a manner that protects against contamination.” In their agreement with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the defendants agreed to an injunction preventing them from processing or distributing food products until they undergo an FDA inspection and facility testing by…
Contradicting an advisory jury verdict, a Pennsylvania federal court has allowed Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Co. to void its policy with H.J. Heinz Co. covering damages related to the manufacture and sale of lead-tainted baby cereal. H.J. Heinz Co. v. Starr Surplus Ins. Co., No. 15-0631 (W.D. Penn., order entered February 1, 2016). Surplus sought to rescind the policy, and the jury agreed with its argument that Heinz had made material misrepresentations on its application for product contamination coverage. The jury concluded that the insurance company knew about the misrepresentations and sold the policy anyway, thus losing its grounds for rescinding the policy; the court disagreed, finding “Heinz did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Starr had sufficient knowledge of the misrepresented facts prior to issuing the policy.” Accordingly, the court voided the policy. Additional information about the jury decision appears in Issue 588 of this Update.…
A Delaware cheese company and two individual defendants have pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for distributing adulterated ricotta, queso fresco and fresh cheese curds in several neighboring states. U.S. v. Roos Foods, Inc., No. 16-0013 (D. Del., information filed January 22, 2016). Roos’ cheese was connected to a 2014 outbreak of Listeria that caused five adults and three newborns to contract listeriosis. The criminal information alleged the company produced the cheese in unsanitary conditions, including the “[f]ailure to clean food-contact surfaces as frequently as necessary to protect against contamination of food” and “failure to store raw materials or ingredients in a manner that protects against contamination.” In their agreement with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the defendants agreed to an injunction preventing them from processing or distributing food products until they undergo an FDA inspection and facility testing by…
Whole Foods and a consumer have reached an agreement in a lawsuit alleging the company misrepresented the prices of its products before the point of purchase. Burgos v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., No. 15-7357 (D.N.J., stipulation filed January 20, 2016). The plaintiff alleged that some of Whole Foods’ price displays failed to meet the state’s requirements, which she argued amounted to violations of New Jersey’s consumer-protection statute. The stipulation specifies that the individual plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice, but the plaintiff’s proposed class is not bound to the terms of the agreement. Issue 591
A Pennsylvania jury has found that Starr Surplus Lines Insurance must uphold H.J. Heinz Co.'s $25 million policy covering damages related to baby cereal tainted with lead. H.J. Heinz Co. v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co., No. 15-0631 (W.D. Penn., jury verdict entered December 16, 2015). Heinz sought a declaratory judgment that the insurance provider must cover business-interruption costs after China's food-control agency found lead in the company's high-protein dry baby cereal. Starr argued that Heinz had misrepresented the situation when the company applied for the policy because it failed to disclose previous contamination incidents. The jury concluded that although Starr did prove "that Heinz made a misrepresentation of fact(s) in its insurance application which was material," Starr "waived the right to assert a rescission claim" either because it sold the policy with knowledge of the misrepresentation or because it failed to rescind the policy after learning of the misrepresentation.…
A New Jersey federal court has dismissed putative class actions against Whole Foods Market Group Inc., Wegmans Food Markets Inc. and Acme Markets Inc. alleging that they misrepresented their bread products as “freshly baked” or “baked in-store” despite actually being frozen, processed or baked elsewhere. Mladenov v. Wegmans Food Mkts. Inc., No. 15-0373 (D.N.J., order entered August 26, 2015); Mladenov v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp. Inc., No. 15-0382 (D.N.J., order entered August 26, 2015); Mao v. Acme Markets Inc., No. 15-0618 (D.N.J., order entered August 26, 2015). Additional information about the three complaints appears in Issue 549 of this Update. The court found holes in each of the plaintiffs’ amended complaints, noting that they lacked “any detail as to what Plaintiffs purchased, the cost of these items, and the supposed value of what they received,” which are necessary to a price-premium claim. “Nowhere in their complaints or opposition do Plaintiffs…
A New Jersey federal court has again denied class certification to a trio of women suing Beam Global Spirits & Wine for allegedly misrepresenting Skinnygirl® Margaritas as using “only natural ingredients” despite containing sodium benzoate. Stewart v. Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc., No. 11-5149 (D.N.J., order entered June 8, 2015). Details about the court’s previous examination of certification appear in Issue 529 of this Update. The plaintiffs argued that the class could be ascertained through a three-level screening process designed to limit the number of fraudulent claims. The process would require potential claimants to provide a (i) claim form and receipt for the purchase of the product or (ii) a sworn affidavit with the dates, locations and prices of their Skinnygirl® Margarita purchases as well as a description of the bottle. In the latter case, the screeners would then check the potential claimants’ affidavits for accuracy to determine, for…
H.J. Heinz Co. has filed a lawsuit against Boulder Brands USA seeking to vacate and reverse a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision finding that the marks representing Heinz’s Weight Watchers Smart Ones® and Boulder’s Smart Balance® are sufficiently distinct, allowing both to exist. H.J. Heinz Co. v. Boulder Brands USA, Inc., No. 15-0681 (W.D. Penn., filed May 26, 2015). In its opposition to the Smart Balance® mark, Heinz asserted that the Smart Ones® mark was famous and would be diluted by Smart Balance®, but based on insufficient evidence TTAB disagreed in its March 2015 decision. In addition to the reversal, Heinz seeks a declaration of likelihood of confusion and a declaration of dilution under the Lanham Act and asks the court to direct the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to invalidate the Smart Balance® mark. Issue 566
