The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has intervened in an ongoing series of lawsuits against Tri-Union Seafoods, StarKist and Bumble Bee Foods alleging the companies conspired to set prices for tuna in the United States. In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 15-2670 (S.D. Cal., order entered January 20, 2015). A California federal court granted the government’s unopposed motion to intervene at a status conference with attorneys representing several consumer and competitor plaintiffs in the consolidated action. The court found “common questions of law and fact between this civil action and an ongoing criminal grand jury investigation” conducted by the DOJ and accordingly granted a stay in the case. Details about the consolidation appear in Issue 588 of this Update and additional information on lawsuits brought by grocers appears in Issues 574 and 590. Issue 591
Category Archives 9th Circuit
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a class action can continue after the defendant offers the lead plaintiff everything requested and the plaintiff rejects the offer. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Jose Gomez, No. 14-857 (U.S., order entered January 20, 2016). The claim at issue stemmed from an alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by Campbell-Ewald Co. after the U.S. Navy contracted the company to create a multimedia recruiting campaign. Campbell-Ewald offered the plaintiff costs plus $1,503 per unwanted text message received, but the plaintiff let the settlement offer expire without response. The company then moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that no case or controversy existed because its offer had mooted the plaintiff’s claim by providing him with complete relief. The district court denied the motion’s argument and the Ninth Circuit later agreed, but other federal appeals courts had decided the issue differently. The Supreme Court…
Idahoan Foods LLC has filed a lawsuit against Basic American Inc. alleging the company’s line of potato products marketed under the name “Buttery Home-Style” infringes on Idahoan’s rights to “Buttery Homestyle,” its brand of potato products. Idahoan Foods LLC v. Basic Am. Inc., No. 16-0005 (D. Idaho, filed January 6, 2016). Idahoan’s trademark application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was filed in May 2015 and remains pending, but the company argues that it has used “Buttery Homestyle” commercially since 2003. Idahoan notified Basic American in December 2015 of its allegedly superior rights to the mark; the complaint asserts that Basic American then filed a lawsuit in California federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that “Buttery Home-Style” does not infringe “Buttery Homestyle.” Idahoan seeks an injunction, destruction of the infringing mark, damages and maturation of its trademark application. Issue 590
A California federal court has allowed plaintiffs in a false advertising putative class action to dismiss their claims of fraud based on the “extra virgin” quality of Filippo Berio olive oil in favor of pursuing their allegations that the products are falsely labeled as “made in Italy.” Kumar v. Salov N. Am. Corp., No. 14-2411 (N.D. Cal., Oakland Div., order entered January 8, 2016). The plaintiff sought to dismiss the “extra virgin” portion of the claims after the discovery process revealed the olive oil was sold in both clear-glass bottles—which the plaintiff asserted could damage the quality of the oil because of the light allowed through the glass—and tinted-glass bottles. Additional details about the claims’ survival of a motion to dismiss appear in Issue 554 of this Update. In February 2015, Shook Partner Ann Havelka authored an article for Law360 examining the case, arguing that it is “an example of…
A plaintiff has filed two similar lawsuits against H.J. Heinz Co. and Rockstar, Inc. alleging the companies’ products wrongfully bear “Made in the USA” label claims because they contain “foreign ingredients.” Alaei v. Rockstar, Inc., No. 15-2959 (S.D. Cal., filed December 31, 2015); Alaei v. H.J. Heinz Co., No. 15-2961 (S.D. Cal., filed December 31, 2015). Heinz 57® sauce, one complaint argues, is misrepresented as manufactured in the United States because some of its ingredients, including “turmeric, tamarind extract, and jalapenos, among other ingredients,” are “not from the United States.” Similarly, Rockstar’s Sugar Free beverage, described as “Made in the USA” on the label, contains “various amounts of taurine, guarana seed extract, and milk thistle extract, which, among other ingredients in Defendants’ products, are not from the United States.” These foreign ingredients, the complaint argues, are problematic because they are not subject to the same strict regulatory requirements and “are…
The nonprofit advocacy group Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking to prevent the U.S. Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) from adopting a recommendation of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC). The DGAC is a joint committee formed by USDA and HHS that recommended the agencies drop from the newly issued 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans the advice that healthy individuals limit their daily dietary cholesterol consumption to 300 milligrams per day. PCRM seeks to permanently enjoin the agencies from incorporating the recommendation into the guidelines and to instead maintain current recommended daily limits. The complaint alleges the data underlying the DGAC’s recommendation is not “fairly balanced” within the meaning of the Federal Advisory Committee Act because it omits evidence unfavorable to the egg industry. Rather, PCRM contends that the DGAC…
A California federal court has refused to certify the proposed class in a case alleging Yakult U.S.A., Inc. mislabels its probiotic yogurt drinks as providing nonexistent health benefits. Torrent v. Yakult U.S.A., Inc., No. 15-0124 (C.D. Cal., order entered January 5, 2016). The plaintiff argued that “Yakult fails to actually confer any health benefit and that there is no credible scientific evidence that the probiotics in the beverage do what Yakult claims,” and he sought to enjoin Yakult from continuing to sell the product with its allegedly false labeling. The court found that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because he did not intend to buy Yakult’s product again. “Owing to his lack of standing to pursue injunctive relief,” the court said, “he has failed to provide a sound rationale for class certification under either [certification standard].” Further, “even if it were possible for [the plaintiff] to obtain…
Grumpy Cat Ltd., owner of the Grumpy Cat trademark, has filed a copyright infringement suit against Grenade Beverage LLC alleging the company failed to pay for the sales of authorized merchandise and sold additional unauthorized branded products. Grumpy Cat Ltd. v. Grenade Beverage LLC, No. 15-2063 (C.D. Cal., filed December 11, 2015). "Ironically," the complaint states, "while the world-famous feline Grumpy Cat and her valuable brand are most often invoked in a tongue-and-cheek fashion, Defendants' despicable misconduct here has actually given Grumpy Cat and her owners something to be grumpy about." Grumpy Cat agreed to license its trademark to Grenade for use in relation to "a line of Grumpy Cat-branded coffee products," which the complaint asserts was mutually understood to mean a line of iced-coffee beverages called the "Grumpy Cat Grumppuccino." Grumpy Cat alleges that it later learned Grenade also planned to produce a line of roasted coffee grounds products associated…
A California federal court has denied a proposed settlement in a consumer class action alleging Annie Chun's® soup products, made by CJ America Inc., either contain monosodium glutamate or ingredients that produce the substance during the cooking process despite being labeled as "No MSG Added." Petersen v. CJ America Inc., No. 14-2570 (S.D. Cal., order entered December 16, 2015). The court rejected the bid to certify the class for purposes of the settlement, finding the plaintiff had shown that the South Korean company was subject to jurisdiction in California but not necessarily other states, thus precluding the approval of a nationwide class. The parties reached the proposed settlement in November 2015. Additional details appear in Issue 584 of this Update. Issue 588
Nine putative class actions and 44 related cases alleging that StarKist Co., Bumble Bee Foods LLC and Tri-Union Seafoods LLC conspired to fix prices of canned tuna have been consolidated by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., No. 15-2670 (S.D. Cal., order entered December 9, 2015). The court found that the actions "share factual questions arising out of an alleged conspiracy by defendants—the three largest producers of packaged seafood products in the U.S. with an alleged collective market share of more than 70%—to fix prices of packaged seafood products." The court also noted that the issue is "the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation by the U.S Department of Justice." Additional details about one of the proposed class actions appears in Issue 574 of this Update. Issue 588
