Counsel for five current and former Illinois prison inmates has reportedly indicated that four expert witnesses are prepared to testify that the soy in the inmates’ prison diets caused them “irreparable, actual harm,” and thus their litigation against the state, prison wardens and nurses will proceed. Harris v. Brown, No. 07-03225 (C.D. Ill., filed August 16, 2007). According to a news source, the inmates are seeking an order to stop the Illinois Department of Corrections from using soy in the food prisoners eat; the plaintiffs claim they consumed up to 100 grams of soy protein daily despite Food and Drug Administration recommendations that soy intake not exceed 25 grams. Claiming violations of their Eighth Amendment rights to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, the plaintiffs are being represented by the Weston A. Price Foundation, which opposes soy foods and has backed similar lawsuits in other states. The foundation claims that…
Category Archives 7th Circuit
A federal magistrate judge in Illinois has stayed a putative class action, the fourth of five brought against The Quaker Oats Co., alleging that the company deceives consumers by representing that its granola and oatmeal products are “heart healthy,” “wholesome,” and a “smart choice made easy,” when they actually contain trans fat. Askin v. The Quaker Oats Co., No. 11-111 (N.D. Ill., order entered February 15, 2012). The named plaintiff, a New York resident, filed his complaint on behalf of a putative nationwide class after other similar suits were filed in California, where they are proceeding as one consolidated action. He unsuccessfully sought to consolidate all of the action in Illinois before a multidistrict litigation court. Quaker and the intervening plaintiffs, who filed the California actions, asked the court to dismiss the Illinois action under the first-to-file rule, and the court denied the request despite finding that the suits are…
Spike, LLC, a company that makes and distributes energy drinks, has filed a lawsuit against the company it hired to destroy 18 pallets of products that Spike determined should be removed from the marketplace as unfit for sale, claiming that the recycling company failed to destroy the products and, in fact, sold them “thereby undercutting Spike’s sales.” Spike, LLC v. Nationwide Recycling, LLC, No. 12CV00111 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Waukesha Cty., filed January 10, 2012). Seeking compensatory and treble damages, attorney’s fees, and interest, the plaintiff alleges conspiracy; breach of contract; property loss through fraudulent misrepresentation; misrepresentation: intentional deceit; misrepresentation: strict responsibility; misrepresentation: negligence; and conversion. According to the complaint, Spike paid the company $10,000 to destroy 13,617 cases of energy drink products, which had a value of about $900,000.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has turned aside a challenge to an Indiana law that prevents an alcoholic beverage retailer from shipping wine to its customers via motor carrier. Lebamoff Enters., Inc. v. Huskey, No. 11-1362 (7th Cir., decided January 17, 2012). The retailer claimed that the law was preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 and that it violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Writing for the panel, Judge Richard Posner explained that the Twenty-First Amendment, which confers core powers on the states to regulate the sale of alcoholic beverages, places a thumb on the scale balancing state and federal interests. If the state interests are within those core powers, wrote Posner, there is a “‘strong presumption’ of validity.” According to the court, Indiana requires that drivers employed by liquor retailers be trained in the state’s alcohol laws and the recognition of…
A federal court in Illinois has determined that insurers providing coverage to Phusion Projects, Inc., which makes Four Loko, an alcoholic beverage with large amounts of caffeine and other stimulants, do not have a duty to defend the company in lawsuits alleging injury from intoxication. Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Phusion Projects, Inc., No. 11-1253 (N.D. Ill., decided January 17, 2012). The insurers filed a declaratory judgment action against Phusion claiming that they had no duty to defend or indemnify it in five lawsuits because of an unambiguous exclusion from coverage in the applicable insurance policies. Phusion brought a counterclaim, arguing that they did have a duty to defend it. According to the court, the exclusion applies to any case alleging injury arising from intoxication. Because four of the five cases filed against Phusion involve injury attributable to intoxication, the court found that the insurers have no duty to defend the beverage…
A federal court in Illinois has granted the motion to dismiss filed by Phusion Projects, Inc., which sells Four Loko®, a caffeinated alcoholic beverage, in a case brought by one of the company’s insurers seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify the beverage maker in third-party lawsuits claiming injury, death or economic harm. Selective Ins. Co. of S.C. v. Phusion Projects, Inc., No. 11-3378 (N.D. Ill., decided November 15, 2011). According to the court, the case presented no case or controversy because Phusion has withdrawn its tender of defense and request for indemnification from this insurer. Because Phusion refused to withdraw its request “with prejudice and for all purposes” and continued to provide the insurer with notice of new claims “in compliance with the policy notice provision,” the insurer argued that the beverage company was reserving its right to reassert a demand for coverage in…
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that liability insurers of a major U.S. egg producer have no obligation to defend it in class action lawsuits alleging that the egg producer conspired with others to keep the price of eggs artificially high. Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. Columbia Cas. Co., No. 11-1599 (7th Cir., decided November 1, 2011). Rose Acre Farms claimed that the antitrust actions sought damages falling under what the policies call “personal and advertising injury.” The court disagreed, noting that the company tried to “connect its advertising to the antitrust suit in [a] convoluted manner.” Because the antitrust complaints had nothing to do with trademark infringement, i.e., using another’s advertising idea without permission, which is the conduct covered by the “advertising injury” provision, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling denying coverage
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed with prejudice consumer protection claims filed against two companies that make snack bars with extra fiber, finding the claims preempted under federal law. Turek v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-3267 (7th Cir., decided October 17, 2011). According to the court, “The disclaimers that the plaintiff wants added to the labeling of the defendants’ inulin-containing chewy bars are not identical to the labeling requirements imposed on such products by federal law, and so they are barred.” The plaintiff had sought the inclusion of information on chewy bar product labels indicating that inulin derived from chicory root “produces fewer health benefits than a product that contains only ‘natural’ fiber,” and that “inulin from chicory root should not be consumed by pregnant or lactating women.” Additional details about the complaint and the district court’s ruling dismissing the claims appear in Issues 327 and 364 of…
A federal court in Illinois has determined that a plaintiff claiming that he would not have paid a premium for a product advertised as “heart healthy,” “0 grams trans fat” and “wholesome” had he known it actually contained trans fats, has standing to pursue his false advertising claims under state law. Askin v. The Quaker Oats Co., No. 11-111 (N.D. Ill., decided October 12, 2011). Citing a recent Seventh Circuit decision in which the court found standing under similar circumstances, that is, an affirmative product representation and allegations that consumers paid more for the product than they would have had they known of its purported risks, the court ruled that alleged economic harm alone is redressable and confers standing. The court deferred ruling on the defendant’s argument that the named plaintiff in this putative class action cannot file a lawsuit under Illinois law because he is a resident of and purchased the…
A federal court in Illinois has determined that the government did not allege facts sufficient to pierce the corporate veil of related U.S. and foreign corporations and thus could not bring the foreign corporations before the court on charges of avoiding $80 million in customs duties on honey imported into the United States between 2002 and 2009. United States v. Alfred L. Wolff GMBH, No. 08-417 (N.D. Ill., decided September 26, 2011). A federal grand jury indicted the foreign defendants and a U.S. corporate entity on 44 counts in August 2010. The U.S. entity’s attorneys voluntarily accepted service on its behalf and on behalf of its parent and then appointed, via a shareholder resolution, a limited-authority corporate representative to appear before the court and enter a not-guilty plea for the U.S. defendants. This representative did so, and, immediately after the arraignment, the government served the representative with summonses for each of…
