The Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided which of the parties sued over an E. coli outbreak that sickened dozens of Sizzler Steak House patrons in 2000 and caused the death of a 3-year-old are liable for consequential damages, indemnity and costs under various supply chain and insurance contracts. Kriefall v. Sizzler USA Franchise, Inc., Nos. 2009AP1212 & 2010AP491 (Wis., decided June 29, 2012). Among other matters, the court ruled that Sizzler was entitled to (i) recover consequential damages for the meat supplier’s breach of implied warranties despite limiting language in the continuing guaranty provision of their contract, and (ii) indemnity from the meat supplier for Sizzler’s advance partial payment to the family of the deceased child “because the payment was not voluntary and the jury found that Sizzler was zero percent liable for the E. coli contamination.” The court also ruled that Sizzler could not recover its attorney’s fees despite a jury finding…
Category Archives 3rd Circuit
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has consolidated before a multidistrict litigation (MDL) court in New Jersey six lawsuits alleging that Tropicana deceptively markets its not-from-concentrate orange juice as “100% Pure & Natural,” despite extensive processing. In re: Tropicana Orange Juice Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2353 (J.P.M.L., order entered June 11, 2012). New Jersey was selected as the appropriate venue because plaintiff’s counsel in the case filed there “appear to have significantly investigated and developed the factual issues underpinning their complaint.” Other plaintiffs apparently dismissed their complaints to join the New Jersey action, and JPML found that the court there had the resources to devote to the litigation and an experienced judge not currently overseeing an MDL. The panel refused to include a potential tag-along case brought by a plaintiff who argued for “industry-wide centralization,” that is, an MDL that would include all orange juice manufacturers…
In advance of a July 9, 2012, hearing before a federal court in New Jersey to approve the settlement of claims that Ferrero USA, Inc. misled consumers about nutritive value in its ads for Nutella®, a hazelnut spread purportedly containing high fat and sugar levels, a number of class members have filed objections that challenge class notice, most of the settlement terms and the fee award to plaintiffs’ counsel. In re: Nutella Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 11-1086 (D.N.J.). Additional details about the proposed settlement appear in Issue 437 of this Update. Class member Clark Hampe, for example, complains that the settlement fund “has a claims procedure that caps the total number of claims that can be made and the maximum amount of compensation for class members. Then, if these arbitrary maximums are satisfied, the settlement is vague about what happens next. Either funds will be paid to a…
A federal court in New Jersey has, for a second time, requested supplemental briefing before approving a stipulated final order for permanent injunction and other equitable relief in the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) action against a company that allegedly marketed açai-berry weight-loss products with “fake” news reports and deceptive claims. FTC v. Circa Direct LLC, No. 11-2172 (D.N.J., order filed June 13, 2012). Among other matters, the court seeks FTC’s views on whether the agency has shown it was likely to succeed on the merits “without an admission of liability by the Defendants and with no evidentiary submissions before the Court.” The court also requests additional briefing on whether it “may consider the lack of an admission by the defendants in its public interest analysis under the [FTC Act].” When the parties submitted their first supplemental briefs, FTC Commissioner J. Thomas Rosch submitted a letter indicating that, in his view,…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Starbucks Corp. alleging that the company deceived consumers by failing to disclose that some of its products were made with cochineal extract, a common food-coloring ingredient made from crushed insects. Anderson v. Starbucks Corp., No. BC485438 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed May 25, 2012). Seeking to represent a nationwide class and statewide subclass of consumers, the plaintiff claims that she and the class members, had they known about the company’s use of the ingredient, would not have purchased the products for a number of reasons, including objections to consuming animal products, allergic responses to the ingredient or “sheer disgust.” Alleging violations of the California Unfair Business Practices Act and False Advertising Act, unjust enrichment, fraud by omission/concealment, and violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the plaintiff seeks disgorgement, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, payment to a cy pres fund,…
A federal court in Pennsylvania has denied the motion for summary judgment filed by a Burger King franchisee sued for violating the civil rights of an African-American truck driver who alleged that restaurant employees spit in his sandwich before serving it. Goodwin v. Fast Food Enters. #3, LLP, No. 10-23 (W.D. Pa., decided May 16, 2012). This motion was based on the assertion that the plaintiff would be unable to establish that the defendant is liable for the “allegedly discriminatory actions of the employees” and a request to strike the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. In a previous motion, also decided against the franchisee, the court determined that “there were triable issues of material fact concerning whether Goodwin’s sandwich had been spat into and whether the incident, if it occurred, was racially motivated.” According to the court, the doctrine of respondeat superior, may not, as argued by the defendant, apply in…
A New Jersey resident from Scotland, who began working in 2000 for seafood company North Landing Ltd. at the invitation of its former owner, has filed a wrongful discharge suit against the company, its new owners and a supervisor claiming that her concerns over the company’s purportedly illegal practices, when brought to the attention of her supervisor, resulted in him verbally berating and slapping her, thus creating a hostile work environment that she could no longer tolerate. Chadwick v. North Landing Ltd., No. L1776-12 (N.J. Super. Ct., Passaic Cty., filed April 26, 2012). Among other matters, the plaintiff alleges that the company processed and sold farm-raised salmon treated for sea lice with Salmosan, a chemical that she claims the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved. She contends that when she brought this to her supervisor’s attention, he told her to “delete computer records showing the fish having been…
The claims process under two settlements reached with the company that makes the hazelnut spread Nutella® is underway, and consumers can recover up to $20, or $4 each for up to five jars purchased during the relevant periods. In re: Ferrero Litig., No. 11-205 (S.D. Cal.) (California class, Aug. 1, 2009 – Jan. 23, 2012); In re: Nutella Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 11-1086 (D.N.J.) (Nationwide class, except California, Jan. 1, 2008 – Feb. 3, 2012). The settlement funds available to both classes total $3.05 million, but if the claims exceed this amount, individual payments “will be reduced proportionately.” Under the settlement agreement, the company, which continues to deny any wrongdoing, will modify its product label and certain marketing statements, create new TV ads, and change the Nutella® website. The company also agreed not to object to a California fee award of $900,000 and New Jersey fee award of $3…
Putative class actions have been filed in New Jersey and California federal courts against Tropicana Products, Inc., alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling and marketing its orange juice as “100% pure and natural,” when it actually “undergoes extensive processing which includes the addition of aromas and flavors.” Lynch v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., No. 11-07382 (D.N.J., filed December 19, 2011); Lewis v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., No. 12-00049 (E.D. Cal., filed January 6, 2012). Both plaintiffs seek to certify nationwide classes. The New Jersey plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and injunctive and declaratory relief. He requests compensatory, treble and punitive damages; prejudgment interest; restitution; injunctive relief; attorney’s fees; and expenses and costs of suit. The California plaintiff, who also seeks to certify a subclass of California consumers, alleges unjust enrichment; breach of express warranty; violation of the state Consumers…
Seeking to certify a nationwide settlement class, excluding California consumers, in litigation against the company that makes the hazelnut spread Nutella®, two named plaintiffs alleging deceptive product marketing have filed their brief in support of preliminary approval of a class settlement. In re: Nutella Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 11-1086 (D.N.J., brief filed January 10, 2012). According to the plaintiffs, the company has agreed to cease the advertising at issue, begin a revised and corrective labeling and advertising campaign, change its website, and establish a $2.5 million settlement fund. Under the proposed agreement, settlement class members could submit claims for $4 per jar purchased during the class period and recover up to a maximum of $20. Nutella would also apparently agree not to oppose class counsel fees less than $3 million. According to the plaintiffs’ brief, similar litigation pending in California is also being settled. Twelve named plaintiffs in four…
