The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed summary judgment dismissing a putative class action alleging that Twinings North America Inc.'s teas contained fewer antioxidants than claimed on product labels, holding the plaintiff had failed to establish standing. Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am. Inc., No. 16-16628 (9th Cir., entered June 6, 2018). The court focused on the plaintiff's statement that she would not purchase Twinings tea again even if the company changed the allegedly misleading labels. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show an imminent or actual threat of future harm, the court held, and the plaintiff’s “some day intention” of professed intent, “without any description of concrete plans, or indeed even any specification of when that some day will be—do[es] not support a finding of the ‘actual or imminent’ injury.”
Category Archives 9th Circuit
The California Supreme Court has affirmed an appeals court ruling holding that an assessment collected to subsidize a grapes promotional campaign is constitutional and not compelled speech. Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm'n, No. S226538 (Cal., entered May 24, 2018). The growers argued that the program required them to "sponsor a viewpoint (promoting all California table grapes equally) with which they disagree" because they "believe that the table grapes they grow and ship are exceptional." The California Table Grape Commission asserted that the program was government speech rather than private speech, resulting in no free speech violation. The court concluded that the compelled grape subsidy constituted government speech, focusing on the "governmental direction and control" of the messaging. "In sum, the Commission was created by statute and given a specific mission to, among other things, promote in a generic fashion a particular agricultural product," the court held. "In…
A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the National List's sunset review process violates the Administrative Procedures Act. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Perdue, No. 15-1590 (N.D. Cal., entered May 24, 2018). The court found that the notice promulgating the alteration of the review process was not a final action because it did not “alter any criteria or standards for the evaluation of a particular substance." The challenge further presented ripeness issues because the harms, such as the inclusion of certain compounds in organic foods, may never materialize, the court noted. The notice does not predetermine the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) decision to renew or remove a substance, the court held, and the plaintiffs are not precluded from later asserting harms from an “allegedly wrongful renewal. Plaintiffs must accordingly await that decision for the Court to properly review USDA’s actions,” the court concluded.
Ferrara Candy Co. has agreed to pay $2.5 million to settle a putative class action alleging its candy boxes contained an unnecessary amount of slack fill. Iglesias v. Ferrara Candy Co., No. 17-849 (N.D. Cal., motion filed May 10, 2018). Under the agreement, Ferrara will "modify its fill level quality control procedures and target fill levels to at least 75% for theater box Products, and at least 50% for bag-in-a-box Products." In addition, the company will pay $2.5 million into a common fund; class members may submit claims for an unlimited number of purchases, but recovery for claims without proof of purchase will be capped at $7.50 per member. The named plaintiff will receive an incentive award of $5,000, and attorney's fees will be capped at 30 percent of the common fund, or about $522,000.
Christopher Lischewski, president and CEO of Bumble Bee Foods, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in California and charged with one count of felony price-fixing for his alleged role in a scheme to fix the price of canned and packaged seafood sold in the United States. U.S. v. Lischewski, No. 18-0203 (N.D. Cal., filed May 16, 2018). The felony charge alleges that Lischewski and co-conspirators engaged in "an unreasonable restraint of interstate commerce" in violation of the Sherman Act; the maximum penalties include up to 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of $1 million. Lischewski's indictment follows guilty pleas on similar charges from Bumble Bee and its former senior vice president.
A California appeals court has affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit asserting that Sutter Home Winery Inc.'s wine should feature a warning about arsenic content pursuant to the state's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Charles v. Sutter Home Winery Inc., No. B275295 (Cal. App. Ct., 2nd Dist., entered May 9, 2018). While Sutter Home's wines feature the "safe harbor" alcohol warning pertaining to cancer and birth-defect risks, the plaintiffs argued that the labels should also reference risks associated with consuming inorganic arsenic. Failing to disclose the inorganic arsenic level, the plaintiffs asserted, amounted to a Prop. 65 violation. "Plaintiffs contend the safe harbor warning for alcoholic beverages is incomplete because it does not alert consumers to the presence of inorganic arsenic, and by this omission, the warning misleads consumers into believing their exposure is limited to a single listed chemical, alcohol," the…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging Trader Joe's Co. falsely advertises its Sour Gummies by failing to disclose that the product contains d-l-malic acid. Wong v. Trader Joe's Co., No. 18-0869 (S.D. Cal., removed to federal court May 4, 2018). The plaintiff asserts that under California law, "any artificial flavor must be identified on both the front-of-package label and the product ingredient list. Defendants fail to do either." According to the complaint, "Trader Joe's maintains a pervasive national marketing campaign guaranteeing that all its house-brand products are only naturally flavored," including the statement "when you see our name on a label, you can be assured that the product contains: YES quality ingredients NO artificial flavors." Alleging unfair competition, false advertising and negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, corrective advertising and attorney's fees. In addition, Trader Joe's has filed a notice of opposition to an application for the…
Eight advocacy groups have filed a joint petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to rule on a 2016 citizen petition seeking recission of approval for several artificial flavorings used in food that have been linked to cancer. Breast Cancer Prevention v. FDA, No. 18-71260 (9th Cir., filed May 2, 2018). The groups, including Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Environmental Working Group and Natural Resources Defense Council, allege that FDA failed to issue a decision by the deadline of August 8, 2016, and request an order mandating FDA to issue a decision within 30 days. The groups allege that after FDA approved the seven chemicals at issue—including benzophenone, ethyl acrylate and styrene—multiple U.S. and international agencies established that each of the chemicals induces cancer in humans or animals. Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,…
Ruling that the plaintiff’s claims are preempted by the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), a federal court in California has dismissed a putative class action alleging Danone North America's Horizon Organic milk is not organic because it contains DHA. Brown v. Danone N. Am. LLC, No. 17-7325 (N.D. Cal., entered May 1, 2018). Noting that the Ninth Circuit has not considered whether the OFPA preempts state law challenges that "call into question whether organic products were properly certified as organic,” the court sided with decisions from the Eighth and Second Circuits holding that such challenges are preempted. “The labels clearly state that the milk is 'organic' and that the milk contains DHA, and the labels bear the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) organic certification logo," the court found. "The USDA database publicly shows that Horizon Organic milk with DHA is currently certified organic by the USDA, and has been…
An Arizona woman has sued Red Lobster Hospitality alleging that she contracted E. coli from eating a salad at a Red Lobster in Phoenix. Styles v. Red Lobster Hospitality, LLC, No. 18-1361 (D. Ariz., filed May 1, 2018). The plaintiff alleged she ate the salad, which contained romaine lettuce, on March 23, 2018, and became ill around March 29, 2018. After she was hospitalized, she tested positive for E. coli O157:H7 bacteria, which has been linked to an outbreak of E. coli from romaine lettuce grown near Yuma, Arizona. Claiming breach of warranty, strict liability and negligence, the plaintiff seeks damages and attorney’s fees. A similar lawsuit was filed against Panera Bread Co. in April 2018.
