Another tomato grower has filed a claim for damages against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alleging that the agency announced a nationwide recall of all tomatoes in the United States in 2008 without having identified tomatoes as the source of a Salmonella outbreak. Williams Farms Produce Sales, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-01399 (D.S.C., filed June 8, 2011). Details about similar claims also filed in a South Carolina federal court appear in Issue 395 of this Update. According to the complaint, FDA ultimately conceded that tomatoes were not the source of the Salmonella contamination, but not before the price for tomatoes plunged. Alleging negligence, defamation, slander of title, product/ commercial disparagement, unconstitutional taking, and violation of unfair trade practices law, the plaintiff seeks actual damages in excess of $11 million, special damages, compensatory damages, treble damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Category Archives 4th Circuit
A South Carolina-based family farming operation has filed a complaint seeking damages that it alleges were sustained in 2008 when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a nationwide recall of round tomatoes due to a purported Salmonella outbreak. Seaside Farm, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-1199 (D.S.C., filed May 18, 2011). The plaintiff claims that independent audits before the recall was announced verified that its produce and practices were safe. Still, according to the complaint, “At the time of the recall, the FDA had not positively identified a single tomato as a current source of the salmonella outbreak in the United States” and “The FDA never identified any contaminated tomatoes and ultimately conceded that tomatoes were not the source of the salmonella contamination.” Claiming that the recall “decimated the market price for fresh tomatoes,” the plaintiff seeks unspecified general and special compensatory damages and interest under the Federal Tort Claims Act.…
A federal court in Virginia has issued an order dismissing without prejudice claims filed against two insurers by a company that makes baby formula; the parties stipulated to the dismissal after similar litigation concluded with a defense verdict following trial in state court. PBM Nutritionals, LLC v. Arch Ins. Co., No. 09-194 (E.D. Va., order entered March 23, 2011). The matter reportedly involves the failure of a hot-water supply system that leached melamine and other filtration materials into eight days’ worth of formula production, contaminating $6 million in baby formula. The manufacturer has apparently recovered $2 million under a contamination policy issued by one of its insurers, but lost its bid to recover under other policies that contained “perils excluded” clauses and pollution/contamination endorsements. The perils-excluded clauses deny coverage for damages resulting from a pollutant discharge unless the discharge is caused by a “peril” insured against. The insurers relied on contamination endorsements that…
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…
According to a news source, a federal court in Virginia, adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation, has approved a $12 million settlement that will compensate those who became ill or died after consuming products containing Salmonella-contaminated peanuts. In re: Peanut Butter Corp. of Am., No. 10-cv-27 (W.D. Va., decided September 2, 2010). Among the 122 eligible claimants are 45 minors and nine wrongful death claimants. The contaminated peanut butter and peanut paste were used in hundreds of products and led to a massive recall of foods such as candy, crackers and cookies. The outbreak purportedly sickened more than 700 people throughout the country and was linked to nine deaths. The settlement has reportedly been funded by the insurance carrier for the bankrupt peanut company. See Mealey’s Litigation Report: Food Liability, September 2, 2010. Meanwhile, The Associated Press (AP) has reported that the peanut company’s former president is currently employed as an industry consultant.…
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has turned aside a First Amendment challenge to a state law restricting advertisements for alcoholic beverages in college student publications. Educ. Media Co. v. Swecker, No. 08-1798 (4th Cir., corrected decision filed April 19, 2010). The restrictions at issue did not allow advertisements for alcohol in any college publication distributed primarily to students younger than 21, but did allow dining establishment advertisements in those publications to refer to alcohol. The student-run newspapers challenging the restrictions claimed that they were losing tens of thousands of dollars in ad revenues annually because of the restrictions, which they contend do not advance the government’s interest in combating underage drinking. The court found sufficient evidence in the record to link decreasing demand for alcohol by college students with the advertising restrictions, citing in particular the inimitable role that student publications play on campus and “the fact that alcohol…
A federal court in Maryland has determined that it is not a convenient forum for the pursuit of claims by Chinese citizens seeking millions in compensation for the injuries allegedly caused by their children’s consumption of powdered milk formula and similar products tainted with melamine. Tang v. Synutra Int’l, Inc., No. 09-0088 (D. Md., decided March 29, 2010). The scandal led to a global recall of powdered milk products and resulted in the execution of several milk company officials found responsible for adding melamine to the products, purportedly to increase their protein content. The melamine allegedly caused the deaths of six infants and caused kidney stones and related injury to thousands of others. The government established a compensation program for affected families, but some sought increased damages in Chinese courts. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, and the court discussed at length…
Acting on behalf of environmental interest groups, a University of Maryland School of Law student clinic has filed a lawsuit against a chicken farmer and the company that owns and processes the farm’s chickens, alleging that the farm’s poultry waste is being discharged into and polluting navigable waters of the United States in violation of the Clean Water Act. Assateague Coastkeeper v. Alan & Kristin Hudson Farm, No. 10-487 (D. Md., filed March 1, 2010). The plaintiffs purportedly tested downstream waters and found high levels of fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria, as well as nitrogen, phosphorus and ammonia. They allege that the water carried from the farm eventually empties into the Chesapeake Bay. In response to the lawsuit, the Maryland Legislature reportedly approved a measure that requires the clinic to disclose its clients and budgets from the preceding two years. An early version of the bill would have penalized the university…
Multidistrict litigation (MDL) plaintiffs who challenged claims that Tyson products were made from “chickens raised without antibiotics” have sought approval of a settlement reached with the company. In re: Tyson Foods Inc., Chicken Raised Without Antibiotics Consumer Litigation, MDL No. 1982 (D. Md., motion filed January 12, 2010). Under the terms of the settlement, Tyson will pay up to $5 million to three tiers of plaintiffs: those who can provide receipts (they can recover up to $50); those who can estimate how much they spent on the products, how often they purchased them and where the purchases were made (they can recover up to $10) and those who simply claim they purchased the product at least once and submit a claim for a $5 coupon instead of cash. Four named plaintiffs in the suits consolidated before the MDL court for pre-trial proceedings and four class members who were deposed will receive…
A U.S. attorney in Maryland has filed a complaint for injunction against a dairy operation and its owner seeking to stop their alleged long-term misuse of antibiotics in animals that were sold for consumption. United States v. Old Carolina Farm, No. __ (D. Md., filed November 3, 2009). According to the complaint, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration and Maryland Department of Agriculture investigations since the mid-1990s showed that drug residues in the tissues of animals the defendants sold exceeded established limits for a number of antibiotics. Contending that consumers of such meats “may experience severe allergic reactions” or develop “antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria,” the complaint alleges that the dairy’s owner ran afoul of the law essentially because he failed and refused to maintain treatment or drug inventory records. The U.S. government seeks permanent injunctive relief to stop the dairy from introducing adulterated food into interstate commerce and from…
