A federal court in California has granted in part the motion for summary judgment filed by Bumble Bee Foods in a putative class action alleging that certain labeling claims either deceived consumers or violate state and federal law. Ogden v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, No. 12 1828 (N.D. Cal., order entered January 2, 2014). Information about the complaint is included in Issue 436 of this Update. The court agreed with Bumble Bee that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding her standing to pursue consumer-fraud claims based on the company’s purported statements about vitamin A and iron, because those statements were made on the nutrition information panel, which the plaintiff “does not claim to have read in connection with purchasing the product.” Other similar statements appeared on the company’s Website, and “Ogden concedes that she did not visit this website prior to purchasing the Sardines Mediterranean…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
A federal court in California has dismissed with prejudice the second amended complaint in a putative class action alleging that Wrigley Sales Co.’s chewing gum and candy products are misbranded because the labels state that they are “sugar free.” Gustavson v. Wrigley Sales Co., No. 12-1861 (N.D. Cal., decided January 7, 2014). The court determined that the product labels do not violate federal regulations, the plaintiff failed to adequately plead her alleged regulatory violations, and the plaintiff “is attempting to impose a labeling requirement that is ‘not identical to’ federal requirements.” Thus the court ruled that the “sugar free” component of the complaint was preempted and any further amendment of the complaint would be futile. The court dismissed the remainder the complaint relating to the defendant’s alleged failure to disclose that the products “are sweetened with nutritive and non-nutritive sweeteners or to detail the percentage of the product that nonnutritive…
A federal court in California has denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification in a suit alleging that Ben & Jerry’s Homemade deceives consumers by using “all natural” on labels for ice cream, frozen yogurt and popsicle products that contain alkalized cocoa. Astiana v. Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc., No. 10-4387 (N.D. Cal., decided January 7, 2014). Additional details about the lawsuit appear in Issue 366 of this Update. The action followed the court’s September 2012 denial of final approval for a class-action settlement in the case on the basis of issues raised by Dennis v. Kellogg, 697 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2012). Among other matters, the court agreed with the defendant that the plaintiff failed to establish that the class was ascertainable and that common issues predominate over individual issues. While the case was initially brought on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers, in its current posture, a…
Addressing a question of first impression, a California appeals court has dismissed a putative class action alleging that Herb Thyme Farms mislabeled its certified organically grown herbs as “USDA Organic” because the contents included a mix of organically and conventionally grown herbs. Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc., No. B239602 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 3, decided December 23, 2013). According to the court, on appeal, the plaintiff changed her theory of liability from alleged violations of state consumer protection laws to violation of the California Organic Products Act of 2003, a federally approved state organic program. She cited Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal. 4th 1077 (2008), to counter the trial court’s conclusion that her claims were preempted under federal law. Distinguishing Farm Raised Salmon Cases, the court was guided instead by Aurora Dairy Corp. Organic Milk Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation v. Aurora Organic Dairy, 621 F.3d 781…
A federal court in California has dismissed, without prejudice, the action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought against the San Francisco city attorney, seeking to halt his investigation of Monster Beverage’s energy drinks and efforts to regulate their formulation, labeling and promotion. Monster Beverage Corp. v. Herrera, No. 13-0786 (C.D. Cal., decided December 16, 2013). Additional information about the lawsuit appears in Issue 482 of this Update. The matter was before the court on the city attorney’s renewed motion to dismiss. Essentially, the court determined that the Younger abstention doctrine, which “counsels federal-court abstention when there is a pending state proceeding,” applied because a state action brought by the city attorney is pending, the action implicates important state interests, not all of the city attorney’s claims are preempted under federal food-labeling laws, and the state proceedings will be adequate for the consideration of Monster’s constitutional claims. Details about the city…
A federal court in California has dismissed a number of claims with prejudice in the second amended complaint filed on behalf of a putative class alleging that the promotion of various snack products made by Procter & Gamble Co. and Kellogg Co. is false and misleading. Samet v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 12-1891 (N.D. Cal., order entered December 10, 2013). The complaint challenges “0g Trans Fat,” “evaporated cane juice (ECJ),” “healthy and wholesome,” and “fortification” claims for snack chips, riblets and mixed berry snacks. The plaintiffs also bring slack-fill claims that survive. The court will allow “0g Trans Fat” claims to proceed, finding the allegations sufficient, but dismissed them with prejudice as to Pringles chip products that are “reduced fat” or sold in 100-calorie packs, finding that they have “insufficient fat content to require the disclosure in question.” The court also dismissed with prejudice causes of action based on…
Citing the settlement of similar class claims in a Florida court and plausibility issues, a federal court in California has dismissed with prejudice a putative class action alleging that companies misbrand products with an evaporated cane juice (ECJ) designation and sell products not meeting the standard of identity for yogurt and milk, including soymilk and almond milk. Ang v. WhiteWave Foods Co., No. 13-1953 (N.D. Cal., decided December 10, 2013). According to the court, the California plaintiffs, who filed their complaint after the class action was filed in Florida, were members of the class, knew about that settlement and had an opportunity to, but did not, object to it. Thus, the court found their ECJ and yogurt claims barred by res judicata. As for claims that consumers are confused by use of the terms “soymilk,” “almond milk,” and “coconut milk” in the names of Silk® products, an alleged violation of…
The Environmental Research Center (ERC) has reportedly filed a lawsuit under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) against a company that allegedly sells “meal replacement” shakes and “hunger blocker” bars containing lead, a chemical known to California as a reproductive toxicant and cause of cancer. ERC v. Ideal Shape LLC, No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.). Under Prop. 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, private litigants such as ERC may bring enforcement actions after notifying an alleged violator that it has failed to provide warnings with products containing listed chemicals. ERC sent such a letter to Ideal Shape on May 17, 2013, alleging Prop. 65 violations every day since at least May 17, 2010. See Courthouse News Service, November 25, 2013.
In False Claims Act (FCA) litigation arising from the sale to the U.S. Department of Agriculture of beef processed from the alleged abuse of downer cattle, WestlandMeat Co. has reportedly agreed to pay more than $3 million, or most of its owners and investors’ remaining assets. United States ex rel. The Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v. Westland/Hallmark Meat Co., No. 08-0221 (C.D. Cal., judgment filed November 27, 2013). The Humane Society had whistleblower videos showing slaughterhouse employees kicking, beating and dragging disabled cattle to slaughter, prompting the largest recall of beef in U.S. history over bovine spongiform encephalopathy concerns. Details about the video appear in Issue 247 of this Update. The agreement apparently reduces the bankrupt company’s liability to some $155 million, from a previous treble damages judgment of nearly $500 million. According to a news source, the case involved disputed topics under FCA case law: implied certification and damages calculations. See…
In a putative class action against Amy’s Kitchen, a federal court in California has dismissed with leave to amend claims that the company has mislabeled its products by listing “evaporated cane juice” (ECJ) or “organic evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., No. 13-3816 (N.D. Cal., order entered November 25, 2013). The company argued that the plaintiff “failed to allege that he relied on the products’ ingredient labeling” and thus lacked standing under the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). According to the plaintiff, “reliance on a label misrepresentation is not a necessary element of a claim under the unlawful prong of the UCL.” Interpreting and applying In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009), and Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011), the court held, “because the statutes plaintiff relies on prohibit specific types of misrepresentation on food labels—the listing of…
