A former non-exempt Anheuser-Busch brewery worker in California has filed a putative class action against the company alleging that it violated the state labor code by failing to include the value of free or discounted beer—termed “incentive pay”—in employees’ regular pay rates and thus undercompensated them by calculating overtime pay on the basis of pay rates that were too low. Controulis v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, No. BC518518 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed August 16, 2013). The plaintiff also claims that the company failed to timely provide a final paycheck when employees were discharged or quit. According to the complaint, the plaintiff was terminated during the year preceding the complaint’s filing while he was on a leave of absence. Seeking to certify several classes of California employees, the plaintiff alleges failure to pay overtime wages, wage statement violations, waiting time penalties, unfair competition (that is, by underpaying its employees, the…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
A federal court in California has dismissed putative nationwide class claims against The Hain Celestial Group alleging that the company’s food and beverage product labels and website mislead consumers because they (i) list the ingredient “Evaporated Cane Juice” or “Organic Evaporated Cane Sugar Juice,” (ii) are falsely labeled “All Natural” or “Only Natural,” and (iii) falsely claim to have “No Trans Fat” or other nutrient content claims. Smedt v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 12-3029 (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div., order entered August 16, 2013). The court dismissed the statutory warranty claims with prejudice on the grounds that the food products are consumables and not covered under the state and federal laws and because food and beverage labels “do not constitute express warranties against a product defect.” The court dismissed the fraud-related claims with leave to amend within 15 days, finding that the amended complaint failed to “unambiguously specify the…
A federal court in California has dismissed a putative statewide class action alleging that Tetley USA misleads consumers by making “antioxidant, nutrient content, and health claims” for certain of its tea products; the statutory warranty claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the remaining claims were dismissed with leave to amend the complaint to comply with the plausibility pleading standard. De Keczer v. Tetley USA, Inc., No. 12-2409 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 16, 2013). According to the court, while the plaintiff acknowledged that the products at issue were consumables under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, he “appears to argue that the product labels constitute express warranties and that the products in question therefore fall under the provisions of section 1793.35, which provides for the enforcement of express warranties on consumables. The Court rejects this argument because food labels, like the ones at issue, do not constitute express warranties against a…
A federal court in California has issued an order granting the motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement in five lawsuits alleging that Naked Juice Co. misrepresented its beverages as “All Natural” and “Non-GMO.” Pappas v. Naked Juice Co. of Glendora, Inc., No. 11 8276 (C.D. Cal., order entered August 7, 2013). According to the court, the proposed settlement was reached after the defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted in part, extensive and contentious discovery was undertaken, and four mediation sessions occurred under the guidance of an experienced retired judge. Under the terms of the settlement, the company will pay $9 million into a settlement fund that will be used to make cash payments to class members and pay the costs of notice and settlement administration, attorney’s fees—not to exceed $3.1 million—and expenses, and incentive awards $2,500 each for four of the five named plaintiffs. Class members with purchase receipts…
A federal court in California has denied a motion to dismiss in a contract dispute between the supplier of molasses allegedly contaminated with lead and the company that used the ingredient to make licorice subject to a nationwide recall. Am. Licorice Co. v. Total Sweeteners, Inc., No. 13-1929 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 13, 2013). Relying on a sales contract it had prepared, the molasses supplier contended that the plaintiff had failed to comply with its notice provisions and therefore was precluded from seeking relief for its alleged breach. Relying on a purchase order with different terms it had prepared and issued before the first shipment under the contract, the plaintiff candy maker argued that the shipments were subject to its terms. The court was unwilling to determine as a matter of law whether the purchase order altered the terms and conditions of the contract, finding that “this issue is…
A federal court in California has determined that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not met the standard for the court to issue an order amending the deadlines set forth in its June 2013 order for promulgating and finalizing implementing regulations under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Ctr. for Food Safety v. Hamburg, No. 12-4529 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 13, 2013). Information about the court’s earlier order appears in Issue 489 of this Update. Because the plaintiff agreed that the proposed sanitary transport rule deadline could be extended, however, the court granted FDA’s motion only to this extent. The proposed rule must be published by January 31, 2014, and the court will allow comment on it until May 31. The final rule must be published as originally specified—no later than June 30, 2015. The court rejected FDA’s request to extend the deadline for promulgation of the…
A federal court in California has dismissed several of the claims in a putative nationwide class action alleging that Bromley Tea Co. makes unlawful and deceptive health-related claims on packaging labels and on its website for the company’s green and black teas. Clancy v. The Bromley Tea Co., No. 12-3003 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 9, 2013). The court rejected the defendant’s challenge to the plaintiff’s standing to assert claims as to products he had not purchased or statements he did not see before buying the products he did purchase. According to the court, “The named plaintiff has standing to assert claims relative to the products he purchased. He does not claim to have standing to assert claims related to other products. What he does claim is that he may be a potential representative of a class of people who have such standing. He may or may not be able…
The Center for Food Safety has filed its reply to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) request that a federal court in California reconsider the Food Safety Modernization Act implementation rulemaking deadlines it established for the agency. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Hamburg, No. 12-4529 (N.D. Cal., filed August 2, 2013). Additional information about FDA’s motion appears in Issue 492 of this Update. While the center argues that FDA is attempting to re-litigate issues the court has already decided, it does not oppose a one-time, 60-day deadline extension for the food transportation rule. Meanwhile, FDA has issued notices extending until November 15, 2013, the comment periods on its proposed “Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food” and “Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption.” According to FDA, the extension will allow stakeholders to consider the interrelationships between…
A federal court in California has determined that EAS Consulting Group LLC and one of its employees, a former acting director in the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Food Labeling, must be barred from discussing issues with plaintiffs’ counsel in litigation against Chobani, Inc. and are disqualified as experts in the case, finding that the regulatory consulting company improperly agreed to consult with plaintiffs’ counsel in consumer fraud litigation against food companies after discussing confidential litigation strategy and issues with Chobani’s defense counsel. Kane v. Chobani, Inc., No. 12-2425 (N.D. Cal, San Jose Div., order entered August 2, 2013). Details about the litigation appear in Issue 491 of this Update. So ruling, the court denied Chobani’s request to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel unless they communicate further with EAS about the issues in this putative class action without a waiver from Chobani. According to the court, while confidential information about the…
A federal court in Washington has dismissed without prejudice a number of claims in a putative class action alleging that the producer and seller of a vitamin water product misled consumers by failing to disclose that the product contains caffeine or its relative amount and falsely represents that the product is a “natural tonic” and contains “natural caffeine.” Maple v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 12-5166 (E.D. Wash., order entered August 1, 2013). While the court determined that the plaintiff had standing by rejecting Costco’s contention that the labeling on one product unit was not visible through the packaging encasing the variety packs in which it is sold, it found that federal law preempts claims that the defendants were required to disclose the presence of caffeine or state its relative amount in the drink. Among the claims that the court dismissed for insufficient pleading were (i) violation of the state’s consumer…
