The Center for Environmental Health, the Center for Food Safety, Cultivate Oregon, and the International Center for Technology Assessment have filed a complaint for declaratory and equitable relief against Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue, alleging that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) withdrawal of the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices rule (OLPP) violated both the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Ctr. for Envt’l Health v. Perdue, No. 18-1763 (N.D. Cal., filed March 21, 2018). The complaint alleges that USDA’s first rationale for withdrawal of the OLPP, that it lacked the authority to set standards for livestock production, is “contrary to the plain language of OFPA, which unambiguously requires USDA to promulgate additional standards for the care of livestock based on NOSB (National Organic Standards Board) recommendation." The rationale was not a permissible interpretation of the OFPA's requirements, the complaint asserts, and is arbitrary and capricious.…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
A California state court has reportedly approved a class action settlement that will provide vouchers or cash to state residents who bought Safeway olive oil allegedly falsely labeled as “imported from Italy.” Kumar v. Safeway, No. RG14726707 (Cal. Super. Ct., entered March 16, 2018). The class alleged that Safeway labeled its olive oil as imported and “extra virgin” but manufactured it from olives grown and pressed outside Italy. The settlement reportedly offers class members $0.25 to $0.75 or vouchers worth up to $1.50; attorneys were awarded more than $1.4 million in fees and expenses and the named plaintiff will receive $6,490.
A California federal court has dismissed with prejudice a putative consolidated class action alleging that Quaker Oats Co. falsely advertised its instant oatmeal as containing maple syrup, finding that the plaintiffs were unable to allege conduct not preempted by the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). In re Quaker Oats Maple & Brown Sugar Instant Oatmeal Litig., No. 16-1442 (C.D. Cal., entered March 8, 2018). The court previously found that flavoring claims were preempted by the FDCA and the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act, but the court also allowed the plaintiffs to replead so it could consider preemption from the standpoint of maple as a sweetener. In its reconsideration, the court noted that, “to evade preemption at this stage, Plaintiffs would need to either allege that the Products’ labels violate the FDA’s sweetener requirements or raise claims that are not addressed by federal law.” Because the amended complaint did…
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging boxes of Cookie Dough Bites, made by Taste of Nature Inc., contain up to 58 percent slack fill. Gillespie v. Taste of Nature, Inc., No. 18-2105 (C.D. Cal., filed March 13, 2018). The complaint alleges that the candies are packed in a plastic pouch inside the box that makes the box appear to be more than half full, but if the candy is removed from the pouch and poured back into the box, the box appears to be about one-third full. Claiming violations of California’s consumer-protection laws, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages, restitution and attorney’s fees.
Washington State University (WSU) has filed a lawsuit alleging Phytelligence Inc., a WSU horticulture professor's company, sold an apple cultivar to a third party, breaching a propagation contract and infringing the university’s patent. Wash. State Univ. v. Phytelligence Inc., No. 18-0361 (W.D. Wash., filed March 8, 2018). WSU allegedly agreed to allow Phytelligence, which aims to commercialize technology for soilless tissue cultures and ripening chemistries, to propagate the cultivar that produces the Cosmic Crisp apple, WA 38. The complaint alleges that although the contract forbade Phytelligence from transferring or selling the cultivar, the company has sold WA 38 trees to at least one grower. The complaint also asserts that after the cultivar was patented, WSU allowed a nonprofit association to grant licenses for propagation and sale of the trees; Phytelligence allegedly inquired about obtaining a licence but did not apply for one. In addition, Phytelligence previously filed a lawsuit against…
A California court has denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging the label of Frito-Lay North America Inc.'s Lay's salt-and-vinegar-flavored potato chips fails to specify whether the vinegar flavoring is natural or artificial. Allred v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 17-1345 (S.D. Cal., entered March 7, 2018). The plaintiff couple filed similar lawsuits against Kellogg and Frito-Lay concurrently in July 2017, and Kellogg's motion to dismiss was denied in February 2018. The court held that the suit is not preempted by U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations and found plausible the allegation that a reasonable consumer might be deceived by the Lay's labeling.
A federal court in California has denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging false advertising of Kellogg Co.'s Pringles Salt & Vinegar chips, finding the plaintiffs adequately pleaded all elements of the complaint, including reasonable customer confusion and claims under state consumer-protection laws. Allred v. Kellogg Co., No. 17-1354 (S.D. Cal., entered February 23, 2018). The court rejected Kellogg’s arguments that the plaintiff failed to prove that the company uses artificial flavoring and that the suit was filed as a means to test whether their “guess” was correct during discovery. The court found that the plaintiffs specified “in great detail the distinction between the natural and artificial versions of the ingredients from how they are made to how they are distinguished on a label. Moreover, Allred did allege which version Kellogg uses in its products.” The court also found that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded a violation of the…
A federal court in Washington will allow plaintiffs to amend a false advertising complaint alleging that their dogs became sick after eating pet food contaminated with pentobarbital, a drug used to euthanize animals. Mael v. Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food Co. Inc., No. 17-5469 (W.D. Wash., entered February 20, 2018). The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs’ dogs became ill after eating Evanger’s beef products and that a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigation found traces of pentobarbital in several of the company’s products. The plaintiffs allege that Evanger's falsely advertised the products as “human grade, USDA inspected meats,” although FDA reportedly found that none of the company’s products were USDA-inspected or human grade. After the FDA investigation, Evanger's recalled all of the products. Evanger's moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that plaintiffs referred to both recalled and non-recalled products. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to allege…
Sanderson Farms Inc. lost a motion to dismiss false advertising claims brought by three advocacy organizations when a California federal court ruled that the claims are not preempted by either the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) or the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). Organic Consumers Ass’n v. Sanderson Farms Inc., No. 17-3592 (N.D. Cal., entered February 9, 2018). The groups alleged that Sanderson’s marketing materials—which asserted that the poultry was “100% Natural” with “no hidden ingredients” and that “100% natural means there’s only chicken in our chicken”—were misleading because of U.S. Department of Agriculture testing reportedly showing the presence of antibiotics, ketamine, pesticides and “other unnatural substance residues.” The court found that consumer-protection laws “are within the historic police powers resting with the states and are therefore subject to the presumption against preemption ... Consequently, they cannot be superseded by federal law or action unless it is the ‘clear and…
A federal court in California has again denied class certification in a lawsuit alleging that Gerber Products Inc. misbranded baby food, finding that the plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief and that the proposed damages models will not provide the correct measure of restitution. Bruton v. Gerber Prods. Co., No. 12-2412 (N.D. Cal., entered February 13, 2018). The complaint alleged that certain “Nature Select” and “Organic” lines of Gerber baby foods made unlawful and deceptive nutrient claims and that the labels did not contain federally required warnings of the high calorie content of the products. After initial rulings on summary judgment were appealed to the Ninth Circuit, the remaining allegations included a claim that the labels violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and a claim for unjust enrichment. The court found that although the plaintiff had standing under the UCL, a class seeking injunctive relief can be certified only…
