An Arizona resident has filed a putative class action in an Illinois federal court claiming that Jimmy John’s Franchise, LLC failed to secure its customers’ personal and financial data, which were purportedly accessed through the company’s point-of-sale systems at some 216 restaurant locations, between June and September 2014. Irwin v. Jimmy John’s Franchise, LLC, No. 14-2275 (C.D. Ill., filed November 6, 2014). While the named plaintiff alleges that access to her credit card information led to “five fraudulent charges to the credit card that she used during the aforesaid transactions at Jimmy John’s,” she seeks to represent 39 separate statewide classes and a District of Columbia class of all those who used a debit or credit card at Jimmy John’s during the data breach regardless of whether they actually experienced a loss or identity theft. The plaintiff alleges that Jimmy John’s failed to promptly discover and block the data breach,…
Category Archives 7th Circuit
An Illinois federal court has declined to certify a class in a lawsuit alleging that Skinnygirl Margarita, a pre-mixed alcohol beverage sold by Skinnygirl Cocktails, and its founder, Bethenny Frankel of reality show "The Real Housewives of New York City" and talk show "Bethenny," was labeled as “all natural” despite containing the non-natural preservative sodium benzoate. Langendorf v. Skinnygirl Cocktails, LLC, No. 11-7060 (N.D. Ill., order entered October 30, 2014). The plaintiff sought to represent a class of all consumers who purchased Skinnygirl Margarita spirits in Illinois after March 1, 2009, but the court identified several shortcomings with the proposed class. First, the court found that the plaintiff failed to offer a valid method to identify the purchasers. “Plaintiff says class membership can be verified by the dates of purchase, the locations of retail establishments, the frequency of purchases, the quantity of purchases, and the cost of purchase, but does not…
A district court erred in denying class certification and granting summary judgment to Sturm Foods and its parent company Treehouse Foods in a putative class action accusing the coffee manufacturer of misleading consumers to believe its Keurig-compatible coffee pods contained high-quality coffee rather than low-quality instant coffee, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has decided. Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, Inc., No. 13-3843 (7th Cir., order entered August 22, 2014). The court found that the district court’s reasoning for denying class certification would make consumer class actions nearly impossible. Combined from four separate consumer protection lawsuits, the case centers on Sturm’s Grove Square Coffee (GSC) pods. The Keurig K-Cup typically contains ground coffee beans and a filter system, but the filter technology was protected by a patent until 2012. In 2010, Sturm began manufacturing pods that could be used in Keurig brewers, but to avoid infringing the patent, the company apparently…
A federal court in Illinois has dismissed without prejudice a putative class action alleging consumer fraud against a company that makes snacks which list evaporated cane juice (ECJ) as an ingredient. Ibarrola v. Kind, LLC, No. 13-50377 (N.D. Ill., order entered July 14, 2014). The court declined to address whether the plaintiff had standing to assert claims as to products she had not purchased because class issues such as adequacy and typicality had not yet been briefed and further declined to consider dismissing the complaint under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court may have called this rationale into question in POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 12-761, 2014 WL 2608859 (June 12, 2014). The court dismissed the entire complaint, however, because it failed “to plausibly and adequately alleged that [the plaintiff] was deceived by Kind’s representations.” She did not apparently “explain how she was deceived, or…
An Indiana federal court has upheld a state statute that limits the sale of cold beer to package liquor stores, barring other beer sellers like convenience stores from selling beer cooler than room temperature. Ind. Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Ass'n v. Huskey, No. 13-784 (S.D. Ind., order entered June 16, 2014). Indiana law divides beer sales permits into three categories: (i) a beer retailer permit for restaurants and bars; (ii) a dealer permit for package liquor stores; and (iii) a beer dealer permit for convenience stores, grocery stores and drug stores. The beer dealer permit places limits on retailers, prohibiting them from selling alcohol on Sunday, establishing a minimum age of clerks who can sell the beer, and barring them from selling beer cooled, chilled or iced. An association representing convenience stores challenged the constitutionality of the permit limitations in May 2013, arguing that the statute violated the association’s…
The company that makes Four Loko, a caffeinated malt liquor beverage allegedly responsible for the deaths of five consumers, has reached a settlement with two Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. units which had sought a declaration that a policy exclusion freed them from defending or indemnifying the beverage maker in the underlying lawsuits. The Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Phusion Projects, Inc., No. 12-7968 (N.D. Ill., stipulation of dismissal filed March 11, 2014). The settlement terms have not been disclosed. Details about a Seventh Circuit ruling on the insurance carriers’ duty to defend appear in Issue 508 of this Update. Issue 517
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that Phusion Projects’ commercial liability insurance carriers have no duty to defend the company in actions alleging that intoxication attributable to consumption of its Four Loko® alcoholic product caused death and personal injury. Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Phusion Projects, Inc., No. 12-1355 (7th Cir., decided December 16, 2013). Applying Illinois law, the court ruled that the liquor liability exclusions in the relevant insurance contracts unambiguously excluded coverage for bodily injury or property damage when the company “may be held liable by reason of: (1) causing or contributing to the intoxication of any person.” So ruling, the court affirmed the lower court’s grant of the insurance carriers’ motion for summary judgment. Issue 508
A federal court in Illinois has denied a request that it reconsider an earlier order denying certification of a multi-state class of single-serve coffee purchasers allegedly deceived into believing that the product was ground coffee and not instant; the court has also granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, Inc., No. 11-565 (S.D. Ill., decided November 20, 2013). Information about the court’s previous ruling appears in Issue 496 of this Update. According to the court, “[t]he problem with the proposed class here is that showing reliance or causation—as required to establish liability requires an investigation of each purchaser.” The court details the purchasing experiences of each named plaintiff in this consolidated action and finds that most did not read the packaging, understood what the word “soluble” means or purchased the product due to price, shelf placement, imagery, or because they liked to try new things. Finding that…
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a district court properly granted Kraft Foods a preliminary injunction against the sale of Cracker Barrel Old Country Store (CBOCS) food products in grocery stores under Kraft’s registered trademark name “Cracker Barrel.” Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., No. 13-2559 (7th Cir., decided November 14, 2013). The court agreed that consumers could be confused when viewing a CBOCS ham label on a grocery store shelf or in a store circular because the words “Cracker Barrel” were larger than “Old Country Store” and Kraft cheeses also carry the “Cracker Barrel” name. While the logos are not the same, the court said that some consumers might believe that both products were made by Kraft. The court weighed the respective harms to both companies and found the potential harm to Kraft greater, because it could be wrongly blamed…
A federal court in Illinois has refused to certify a multistate class of consumers who were allegedly deceived under the consumer protection statutes and unjust enrichment laws of eight named states by a company that, at one time, either misrepresented or failed to indicate that its single serving coffee product contained “instant” or “soluble” coffee rather than fresh ground coffee and a filter. McManus v. Sturm Foods, Inc., No. 11-565 (S.D. Ill., order entered August 26, 2013). According to the court, the class, defined as all consumers in the eight states who purchased the product from September 2010 until the present, included many who had no injury or had not relied on any product representations. Among the putative class members were individuals who (i) knew that the product was instant coffee and bought it anyway because it made no difference to their purchasing decision, (ii) purchased the product after the…
