A California federal court has dismissed with prejudice claims filed against a yogurt maker and its parent company alleging that its Greek style yogurt product was misbranded under federal food regulations. Smith v. Cabot Creamery Coop., Inc., No. 12-4591 (N.D. Cal., decided February 25, 2013). The putative class plaintiffs alleged that the defendants used whey protein concentrate (WPC) and milk protein concentrate (MPC) as “filler material” to “thicken Cabot Greek and increase its protein content, instead of making Greek yogurt the ‘authentic’ way which involves filtering the liquid whey byproduct during the manufacturing process and keeping only the protein-rich solid portion.” They also alleged that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) forbids the use of WPC and MPC. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims because they were premised on the alleged unlawful use of these ingredients, arguing that FDA allows WPC and MPC to be used lawfully “as optional ingredients…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
A federal court in California has denied in part and granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss putative class claims that many of their food products are sold with labels that are unlawful and/or mislead consumers. Ivie v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., No. 12-2554 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 25, 2013). Among the products are chewing gum, crackers, granola, fruit punch, cheese, nut mix, lemonade, stuffing mix, Jell-O®, and Easy Mac®. The labels at issue include the following statements: “natural,” “all natural,” “no artificial” colors/sweeteners/flavors/preservatives/ingredients, nutrient content, health claims, “sugar free,” “sugarless,” certain serving sizes, and “evaporated cane juice.” The allegations are also apparently based on products the named plaintiff did not purchase. The court determined that (i) the plaintiff sufficiently alleged an injury in fact by claiming she would not have purchased the products but for the alleged unlawful or misleading labels; (ii) the plaintiff cannot bring claims relating…
A federal court in California has dismissed some of the putative class claims filed against Twining North America, Inc., alleging that the company misled consumers by labeling its green tea products as a “natural source of antioxidants.” Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc., No. 12-2646 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 25, 2013). Stricken with leave to amend are claims based on labels or products other than green tea because the named plaintiff alleged that she purchased green tea only. The court disagreed with the defendant that the state law-based claims were preempted, finding that by stating its tea is a “natural source of antioxidants,” the defendant made a nutrient content claim regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and that the plaintiff was seeking to enforce state law identical to federal requirements. So ruling, the court cited an FDA warning letter sent to the company over its alleged “nutrient content…
A federal court in California has deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss filed in a consumer protection lawsuit against R.C. Bigelow, Inc. to give the plaintiff an opportunity to amend her complaint. Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., No. 12-2204 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 6, 2013). Indicating that it was inclined to allow most of her state-law claims to proceed and to dismiss her federal claims, the court counseled the defendant “that the Court did not find its arguments regarding preemption and abstention under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction persuasive.” According to the court, the plaintiff has filed claims on behalf of a putative class alleging that the company misrepresents the health benefits of drinking tea and promotes and labels its green tea products with antioxidant assertions “expressly condemned by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA].” The court found the substance of many of the plaintiff’s allegations unclear or…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling dismissing the emotional distress claims filed by a deputy sheriff who alleged that Burger King employees served him a hamburger tainted with spit, in light of a Washington Supreme Court ruling that the state’s product liability law would allow relief for emotional distress damages in the absence of physical injury. Bylsma v. Burger King Corp., No. 10-36125 (9th Cir., decided February 12, 2013). Details about the state high court ruling in response to the question certified to it by the Ninth Circuit appear in Issue 470 of this Update. The Ninth Circuit remanded the matter to the district court with instructions to give the deputy sheriff the opportunity to amend his complaint to conform to Washington law and then to allow the lower court to determine whether he has pleaded “the necessary facts to support his emotional damages…
Answering a question certified by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a divided Washington Supreme Court has determined that a deputy sheriff who was served, but did not consume, a Burger King hamburger contaminated with an employee’s spit, may recover under state product liability law for emotional distress, “but only if the emotional distress is a reasonable reaction and manifest by objective symptomatology.” In re Bylsma v. Burger King Corp., No. 86912-0 (Wash., decided January 31, 2013). The deputy had alleged ongoing emotional distress, including vomiting, nausea, food aversion, and sleeplessness, symptoms that purportedly led him to seek treatment from a mental health professional. So ruling on a matter of first impression, the court majority agreed with the deputy sheriff that the Washington Product Liability Act allows recovery for emotional distress damages absent physical injury. The federal district court which had considered the deputy’s claim, dismissed it on the ground…
A federal court in California has reportedly approved the settlement of wage-related claims in a class action filed by restaurant managers against Benihana National Corp., which owns and operates a Japanese hibachi steakhouse chain. Akaosugi v. Benihana Nat’l Corp., No. 11-1272 (N.D. Cal., settlement approved January 24, 2103). The company has apparently agreed to pay $660,000, including attorney’s fees and costs, to settle claims that it forfeited managers’ accrued vacation and failed to compensate them for it, forced them to work more than eight hours a day without paying overtime, failed to provide meal and rest breaks, and failed to provide accurate wage statements. See Mealey’s Class Actions, February 1, 2013.
General Mills has agreed to establish an $8.5 million fund to settle claims that it falsely advertised its Yo-Plus yogurt as a product that helped naturally regulate “digestive health.” Johnson v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-61 (C.D. Cal., stipulation of settlement filed February 4, 2013). If the court approves the agreement, purchasers throughout the United States will be able to seek $4 for each unit of Yo-Plus purchased, and any unclaimed funds will be distributed to the National Consumer Law Center and Mayo Clinic. The company apparently no longer sells the products. The costs of class notice and administration, attorney’s fees and incentive awards for plaintiffs in several related class lawsuits will be deducted from the settlement fund. Recovery will be capped at 13 units of Yo-Plus yogurt per claimant, unless proof of purchase for more units purchased during the class period can be shown. A hearing for preliminary approval…
A California resident has reportedly filed a putative class action against the company that makes 5-Hour Energy® shots, claiming that “no genuine scientific research” and “no scientifically reliable studies” support the company’s claims that the product provides “any more additional benefits over a caffeine tablet or a cup of coffee.” Soto v. Innovation Ventures, LLC, No. 13-591 (C.D. Cal., filed January 28, 2013). According to a news source, the plaintiff alleges that the company overcharges consumers based on false claims and that some of the product’s ingredients may present serious undisclosed health risks. Seeking to represent a nationwide class and statewide subclass of consumers, the plaintiff apparently alleges violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Business and Professions Code, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud (intentional misrepresentation and concealment of fact). See Mealey’s Class Actions, February 1, 2013.
Without admitting liability, Dole Food Co. has reportedly settled a putative class action that claimed the company misrepresented its environmental practices in Guatemala. Laderer v. Dole Food Co. Inc., No. 12-09715 (C.D. Cal., motion to dismiss filed January 26, 2013). According to the complaint, the plaintiff would not have purchased the company’s bananas or “paid as much for them,” had he known that its “production methods contaminate water supplies, destroy wetlands, cause flooding, destroy the crops of local communities, and/or cause illnesses in children.” The complaint cited company materials indicating its “unwavering commitment” to “environmental responsibility and social accountability” and alleged violation of consumer fraud laws. Under the agreement, “[i]n coordination with social programs already undertaken by Dole’s independent grower in Guatemala, Dole and the non-profit organization Water and Sanitation Health, Inc. will collaborate together on a water filter project to assist the local communities in Guatemala.” According to the company, its…
