A federal court in California has dismissed as preempted certain claims filed by a putative class alleging that Unilever deceptively markets “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter! Spray.” Pardini v. Unilever U.S., Inc., No. 13-1675 (N.D. Cal., order entered July 9, 2013). The dismissal was without prejudice, and the plaintiff has 30 days to amend her complaint. Other claims were also dismissed without prejudice because they were not sufficiently pleaded or because the plaintiff lacked standing to assert a claim under the consumer protection laws of the other states named in the complaint. A claim for unjust enrichment was dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiff claims that the product is deceptively marketed as having “0 fat” and “0 calories” when it actually contains 771 calories and 82 grams of fat per bottle. While the product label specifies that the no-fat and no-calories claim is per serving, and users are referred to…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
Finding the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) proposed “target time-frames” “an inadequate response to the request that the parties submit a proposal regarding deadlines that can form the basis of an injunction,” a federal court in California will require the agency to publish all proposed regulations required under the Food Safety Modernization Act by November 30, 2013. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Hamburg, No. 12-4529 (N.D. Cal., decided June 21, 2013). The court further ordered FDA to close each comment period no later than March 31, 2014, and to finalize the rules no later than June 30, 2015. The order follows the court’s determination that FDA violated the FSMA and Administrative Procedure Act by failing to comply with the food safety rulemaking deadlines established by Congress. Additional details about the litigation appear in issues 481 and 487 of this Update.
A federal court in California has issued an order preliminarily certifying a nationwide class for settlement purposes and approved the class settlement in a case alleging that Barbara’s Bakery misled consumers by labeling its products as “all natural” with “no artificial additives,” “no artificial preservatives,” or “no artificial flavors,” when they contained genetically modified (GM), artificial or synthetic ingredients. Trammell v. Barbara’s Bakery, Inc., No. 12-2664 (N.D. Cal., order filed June 26, 2013). Under the proposed terms, the company would create a $4 million non-revertible fund to pay class member claims, an incentive award for the named plaintiff, attorney’s fees, and costs of notice and administration. Class members would able to recover up to $100 for the purchase of products including cereals, cereal bars, cheese puffs, fig bars, granola bars, Snackanimal® animal cookies, organic mini-cookies, snack mixes, and crackers. The settlement would also require the company to modify the labeling and…
Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Kellogg Co. in a California federal court alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling its Super Mario Fruit Snacks® and Pop Tarts® as “Made with Real Fruit.” Spevak v. Kellogg Co., No. 13-2767, Barnes v. Kellogg Co., No. 13-2768, Ford v. Kellogg Co., No. 13-2770 (N.D. Cal., filed June 14, 2013). Each plaintiff is represented by Benjamin Lopatin in the Law Offices of Howard Rubinstein. Plaintiff Alicia Spevak alleges that the “real fruit” claim is misleading because the fruit snack product “merely contains de minimis real fruit and unhealthy, unnatural ingredients, chemicals and preservative additives, in addition to merely containing apple puree rather than real fruit, which a reasonable consumer would not expect from a product claiming to be ‘Made with Real Fruit.’” Spevak seeks to represent a class of California product purchasers and alleges unfair, fraudulent and unlawful business practices; false and…
A federal court in California has denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that the company misleads consumers by claiming that its Smart Balance® butter products contain plant sterols that can block the absorption of cholesterol; according to the plaintiff, a single serving of the product contains insufficient sterols to achieve the stated benefit. Aguilar v. Boulder Brands, Inc., No. 12-1862 (S.D. Cal., order entered June 10, 2013). Among other matters, the court determined that the named plaintiff had standing to assert claims involving two products that she did not purchase, because the products “advertise the same health benefits arising from the same additional ingredients found on the label in the same position” as the product she did purchase. According to the court, her ability to represent class members allegedly injured by similar products must be analyzed under Rule 23 and not on a motion to…
An outbreak of hepatitis A linked to frozen berry and pomegranate mixes sold in eight states has reportedly sickened 87 consumers to date and spawned at least three putative class actions seeking compensation for hepatitis A testing and vaccination. According to media reports, residents in Arizona, California and Nevada filed lawsuits after the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment advised all consumers exposed to the allegedly contaminated berries to request hepatitis A vaccination or immune globulin injections to reduce their risk of contracting the disease. In addition to the costs of vaccination, the complaints against Townsend Farms Corp. are seeking compensation for time missed from work as well as other expenses related to the outbreak. See Law360, June 3, 2013; NBC News, June 11, 2013; KTAR, June 12, 2013; KRNV & MyNews4.com, June 13, 2013.
A California resident has filed a putative statewide class action alleging that Pepperidge Farm falsely advertised and labeled its Goldfish® crackers as “Natural” despite using genetically modified (GM), synthetic or artificial ingredients to make them. Koehler v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., No. 13-2644 (N.D. Cal., filed June 10, 2013). Among other matters, the plaintiff alleges that the company changed the product’s packaging and labeling to remove the “Natural” statement and characterizes this as “an implied admission that the Products were not natural at all material times hereto when the Plaintiff and putative Class Members purchased the Products that claimed to be ‘Natural’ and no longer make said claim.” According to the complaint, the company’s cheddar-flavored products “contain genetically modified soy in the form of soybean oil, as well as the following ingredients, which, upon information and belief, were each synthetically produced: thiamine mononitrate (‘vitamin B1’), riboflavin (‘vitamin B2’), folic acid and…
Two additional putative class actions have been filed against Monsanto Co., alleging that the recent discovery of genetically modified (GM) wheat on a farm in Oregon has harmed wheat farmers throughout the United States due to diminished prices “resulting from loss of export and domestic markets” and “increased grower costs resulting from the need to, inter alia, maintain the integrity of the soft white wheat supply and/or to keep genetically engineered wheat from further entering the general wheat supply and export channels.” Dreger Enters. v. Monsanto Co., No. 12-211 (E.D. Wash., Spokane, filed June 5, 2013); Ctr. for Food Safety v. Monsanto Co., No. 13-213 (E.D. Wash., filed June 6, 2013). Like the suit filed by a Kansas farmer, the plaintiffs allege nuisance, negligence and strict liability as to Monsanto’s conduct of field tests of GM wheat throughout the country from 1998 to 2005. Information about the other lawsuit appears…
According to a news source, a California appeals court indicated during oral argument that it would likely reverse the dismissal order of a lower court in a wrongful death action alleging that Dole Food Co. paid Colombian paramilitaries to kill 170 people near South American banana plantations. Gomez v. Dole Food Co., Inc., No. B242400 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d App. Div.). During the June 12, 2013, hearing, the court reportedly said “legal problems” with the trial court’s dismissal were sufficient to warrant reversal. In 2012, the lower court dismissed the suit after the plaintiffs’ lawyers failed to file a new complaint within 30 days after an appeals court ruling allowing them to do so became final. Plaintiffs’ counsel apparently claimed that they were unaware of the deadline imposed under California procedural rules and that the court erred by dismissing the case on the basis of Dole’s purported ex parte application. See Law360,…
A federal court in California has preliminarily approved a $3 million settlement of claims by state Starbucks Corp. employees that the company denied them off-duty breaks because its busy stores were understaffed and the company required employees to take their breaks on-duty if only two employees were present. York v. Starbucks Corp., No. 08-7919 (C.D. Cal., order entered June 10, 2013). According to a news source, the court expressed some reservations about the incentive awards to the named plaintiffs, noting that the Ninth Circuit “seems to be taking an evermore-aggressive look at incentive awards and expecting the trial court to look closely at those things.” Additional information about the settlement appears in Issue 484 of this Update. See Law360, June 10, 2013.
