A California federal court has denied a motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that Deoleo USA Inc., importer of Bertolli and Carapelli olive oils, misrepresented the quality of the oils as “extra virgin” despite being mixed with refined oil and using bottles insufficient to prevent sunlight and heat degradation. Koller v. Med Foods, Inc., No. 14-2400 (N.D. Cal., order entered January 6, 2015). Deoleo attacked the complaint for failing to supply the studies supporting the argument that “’imported ‘extra virgin’ olive oil often fails international and USDA standards’ and that packaging olive oil in clear bottles can lead to rapid degradation of its quality,” but the court dismissed the argument for being premature to the pleading phase. Deoleo also asserted that while studies may support the proposition that the oil it imports may not meet extra virgin standards, the plaintiff could not show that the oil in the bottle…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
A California state court has lifted an injunction that barred bisphenol A (BPA) from placement on the list of reproductive toxicants mandated under Proposition 65, the 1986 law requiring warnings to the public about exposure to chemicals “known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.” Am. Chemistry Council v. Office of Envtl. Health Hazard Assessment, No. 34-2013- 00140720 (Super. Ct. Cal., Cty. of Sacramento, order entered December 18, 2014). BPA joined the Prop. 65 list in April 2013, but a court granted the injunction barring its inclusion one week later. The court assessed whether the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) abused its discretion in finding substantial evidence that the regulatory criteria to list BPA were met. It found the American Chemical Council’s (ACC’s) argument that an entry to the list must be supported by “clear evidence that the chemical is known, not merely suspected, to cause cancer…
Finding flaws in a lower court’s likelihood of confusion analysis, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has vacated the denial of an injunction sought by Pom Wonderful that would block the sale of Pur Beverages’ “pur pom” energy drink. Pom Wonderful v. Hubbard, No. 14-55253 (9th Cir., order entered December 30, 2014). Pom Wonderful sued Pur to prevent Pur from using the name “pur pom” based on a claim of trademark infringement, but a California federal court denied Pom Wonderful’s motion for preliminary injunction, finding that Pom likely would not prevail because of distinct visual features on the products. The Ninth Circuit disagreed; it found significant similarities between the “POM” mark owned by Pom and the “pom” used by Pur, including a stylized “o” in each. “POM” and “pom” also sound the same and both refer to pomegranate flavoring or ingredients, the court noted. “Balancing the marks’ many visual similarities,…
A California federal court has held that the state law prohibiting the sale of foie gras resulting from the forcefeeding of ducks or geese is preempted by a federal law regulating the distribution and sale of poultry products. Association des Éleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Québec v. Harris, No. 12-5735 (C.D. Cal., order entered January 7, 2015). The Ninth Circuit previously affirmed a lower court’s denial of a temporary injunction sought by the plaintiffs based on a failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their vagueness or commerce clause challenges. Additional information about the Ninth Circuit ruling appears in Issue 497 of this Update, and details about the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari to review that decision appear in Issue 542. The court first found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the ban despite that defendant Kamala Harris, in her capacity as state attorney…
A California federal court has granted Blue Diamond’s motion to decertify a statewide class of consumers who alleged that the company’s almond milk product labels were misleading because they cited “evaporated cane juice” on the ingredient list rather than the alleged common name for the substance, sugar. Werdebaugh v. Blue Diamond Growers, No. 12-2724 (N.D. Cal., order entered December 15, 2014). The court had preliminarily certified the class in May 2014 on the condition that the plaintiff could provide a damages model that limited recovery to those injured by the alleged mislabeling. Upon reviewing the proposed model, the court found fundamental flaws with the method of determining damages “because Dr. Capps’ model is incapable of isolating the damages attributable to Defendant’s alleged wrongdoing. Instead, Dr. Capps’ methodology measures the ‘combined effect’ of Blue Diamond’s brand value and Blue Diamond’s use of ‘evaporated cane juice’ and/or ‘All Natural’ on the prices…
A California federal court has granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in a case alleging that Safeway charged a class of consumers more than the prices permitted under the terms of its online service contract when the consumers purchased groceries from the grocer’s website. Rodman v. Safeway, No. 11-3003 (order entered December 10, 2014). Safeway sells groceries via its Safeway.com site, where it requires users to accept its Terms and Conditions upon registration. That agreement includes a provision about prices varying from order to order: “The prices quoted on our web site at the time of your order are estimated prices only. You will be charged the prices quoted for Products you have selected for purchase at the time your order is processed at checkout. The actual order value cannot be determined until the day of delivery because the prices quoted on the Web site are likely to vary either…
Two consumers have filed a putative class action in California federal court alleging that Maker’s Mark® bourbon whisky is not “handmade,” as the alcohol brand advertises, but is instead manufactured using “mechanized and/or automated processes” with “little to no human supervision, assistance or involvement.” Nowrouzi v. Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc., No. 14-2885 (S.D. Cal., filed December 5, 2014). Citing photos and a video tour of the distillery as evidence, the plaintiffs argue that because Maker’s Mark® uses machines to make its product, its “handmade” claim and premium pricing amount to misrepresentation and violations of California’s false advertising statute. They allege that they “purchased Maker’s Mark whisky under the false impression that the whisky was of superior quality by virtue of being ‘Handmade’ and thus worth an exponentially higher price as compared to other similar whiskies.” They seek class certification, an injunction requiring discontinuation of the “handmade” description, a corrective advertising…
A California federal court has denied certification to a putative class action alleging that Mott’s misleadingly labeled its apple juice as having “No Sugar Added” because the plaintiff failed to provide a feasible model for calculating damages. Rahman v. Mott’s LLP, No. 13-3482 (N.D. Cal., order entered December 3, 2014). The court further refused to certify a liability class, finding it would not materially advance resolution of the case. The court first assessed the proposed class definition. It found that the plaintiff and the proposed class met the requirements of numerosity, ascertainability, commonality, and adequacy; in addition, the court rejected the juice company’s argument that the plaintiff was atypical because he is a Type 2 diabetic who closely reads nutrition labels. The court then discussed whether the plaintiff established that “the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that…
After a California federal court certified the class for liability but not for damages, the parties to a class action alleging that Jamba Juice mislabeled its smoothie kits as “all natural” despite containing synthetic ingredients like gelatin and xanthan gum have reached a settlement. Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co., No. 13-2998 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal., plaintiffs’ motion for settlement approval filed December 1, 2014). Under the proposed settlement agreement, Jamba Juice will remove “all natural” from its smoothie kit labeling and advertising by March 2015. The agreement will remain in force until the smoothie kits no longer contain the allegedly unnatural ingredients or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration classifies the ingredients as natural. The plaintiffs’ attorneys will also receive $425,000 in costs and fees. Additional information about the class certification appears in Issue 539 of this Update. Issue 547
According to a news source, New Jersey residents have filed a putative class action in state court against the Texas-based company that makes Tito’s Handmade Vodka®, the fourth such action filed within the past two months, alleging that promoting and labeling the product as “handmade” deceives consumers because the vodka is made in an industrial facility and the company sells more than 15 million bottles a year. McBrearty v. Fifth Generation, Inc. The first complaint was filed in California in September 2014 and subsequently removed to federal court, Hofmann v. Fifth Generation, Inc.; the second followed in early October in an Illinois state court, Aliano v. Fifth Dimension, Inc.; the third was filed in a Florida federal court, Pye v. Fifth Generation, Inc. The complaints variously refer to the company’s website and a Forbes article purportedly featuring images of old-time pot-still production (“i.e., in a shack containing a pot still…
