Golden Eagle Insurance Corp. has filed a complaint for declaratory relief against its insured Moon Marine (U.S.A.) Corp., requesting that the umbrella policy it issued to the insured be rescinded because Moon Marine allegedly concealed material facts when it obtained the policy. Golden Eagle Ins. Corp. v. Moon Marine (U.S.A.) Corp., No. 12-5438 (N.D. Cal., filed October 22, 2012). According to the complaint, Moon Marine knew that its imported yellowfin tuna (scrape) was linked to a nationwide Salmonella outbreak that sickened more than 400 individuals and had, in fact, recalled the product, when the $2-million excess insurance policy was obtained. The plaintiffs allege that Moon Marine failed to inform the insurance carrier’s underwriter that the fish importer faced “obvious liability exposure for bodily injury claims from the nationwide salmonella outbreak that had been linked to Moon Marines’ importation of Scrape.” The first lawsuit was actually filed two days before the plaintiffs quoted and bound…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
The parents of a 14-year-old girl who allegedly died after consuming two 24-ounce Monster Energy® drinks in a 24-hour period have filed a wrongful death and strict product liability lawsuit against Monster Beverage Corp. in a California state court. Crossland v. Monster Beverage Corp., No. RIC 1215551 (Cal. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty., filed October 17, 2012). They claim that the teen went into cardiac arrest and was placed in an induced coma at Johns Hopkins Hospital to reduce brain swelling. After six days, life support was terminated, and the girl died. The plaintiffs allege that the autopsy report attributed her death to “cardiac arrhythmia due to caffeine toxicity complicating mitral valve regurgitation in the setting of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.” The complaint contends that two of the company’s energy drinks contain 480 milligrams of caffeine, the equivalent of 14 12-ounce cans of caffeinated soda. Among other matters, the plaintiffs allege that the…
A federal jury in California has reportedly determined that Benihana properly classified three restaurant managers as exempt thus concluding wage-related litigation against the chain. Originally filed as a putative class action in state court, the case initially included claims about overtime wages, accrued vacation pay, rest and meal breaks, and itemized wage statements. By the time the case was tried after removal to federal court, it involved just three named plaintiffs and the overtime dispute. According to a news source, the company nearly derailed the case by alleging that one of the employees had copied and destroyed thousands of files from a computer at the company’s Cupertino, California, location. The court levied sanctions against the employee and dismissed him from the case, but then determined that the conduct, alleged to be “wrongful self-help discovery” and the deletion of stolen copies, may not have been “beyond the pale” because some evidence…
The United Farm Workers has reportedly filed a lawsuit against the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) over its alleged “systemic failure” to enforce a 7-year-old regulation requiring farmers to provide water, shade and rest to employees to prevent heat illness or death. Bautista v. Cal/OSHA, No. ___ (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed October 18, 2012). The union contends that “[a]t least 28 farm workers have died of potentially heat-related causes since the regulation was first approved in 2005. This year alone, Cal/OSHA is investigating heat as a factor in the deaths of four people.” The complaint, filed on behalf of individual farm workers, the United Farm Workers (UFW) and UFW Foundation, alleges, among other matters, that Cal/OSHA has failed to (i) “conduct on-site inspections for complaints”; (ii) “evaluate the conditions alleged in a complaint when it does conduct inspections”; (iii) “issue citations for serious, repeat,…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Campbell Soup Co. alleging that it falsely represents that some of its products are “100% Natural” when they in fact contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) “in the form of soy, corn, soy derivatives, and or corn derivatives.” Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 12-05185 (N.D. Cal., filed October 5, 2012). Specifically targeted in the complaint are the company’s “100% Natural Southwest-Style White Chicken Chili” and “100% Natural Healthy Request® Mexican-Style Chicken Tortilla Soup.” The plaintiff alleges that he “would not have purchased the Products if he had known that the Defendant’s Products are not ‘100% Natural’ because they contain GMOs.” Seeking to certify a statewide class of product purchasers, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. He requests injunctive relief; restitution; disgorgement; attorney’s fees; actual, statutory and punitive damages; costs; and interest.…
A California court has reportedly denied a motion to certify a class of Hard Rock Café employees who allege that the restaurant chain wrongly classified them as exempt employees and then forced them to assume the tasks of non-exempt employees without paying them overtime or allowing them to take meal periods and rest breaks, and otherwise provided inaccurate wage statements. In re Hard Rock Café Wage & Hour Cases, No. JCCP 4549 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., decided October 3, 2012). According to the restaurant chain’s counsel, the court determined that the putative class of kitchen managers lacked numerosity, the identity and number of class members could not be ascertained, and the named representative could not adequately represent the class. The court also apparently found that individual analysis of each employee’s work activities would be required to decide whether they had been properly classified as exempt. Counsel for named plaintiff…
A federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) court in California has certified a nationwide class of consumers who purchased a POM Wonderful pomegranate juice product between October 2005 and September 2010 and allege that the company’s health-related benefit claims are false and misleading. In re POM Wonderful LLC Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2199 (C.D. Cal., decided September 28, 2012). The suit was filed under California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. While POM argued that a nationwide class could not be certified because California law cannot be applied to consumers in other states, the company failed to specifically identify conflicts between the laws of California and other states. According to the court, the company simply cited a Ninth Circuit decision “[p]erhaps relying upon the mistaken assumption that California law cannot be applied to a nationwide class as a matter of law,” and included an exhibit…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against General Mills, Inc., alleging that its “100% Natural” labeling and advertising for products such as Nature Valley® Dark Chocolate Peanut Butter Crunchy Granola Bars are misleading because the products contain ingredients grown from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Rojas v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-5099 (N.D. Cal., filed October 1, 2012). Contending that the soy, yellow corn flour, soy flour, and soy lecithin in the granola bars are GMO ingredients, the plaintiff does not request that the defendant provide a GMO disclosure; rather, he “only requests Defendant to remove the ‘100% NATURAL’ labeling from its Product.” While the plaintiff’s alleged harm is purely economic, i.e., he did not get the benefit of his bargain, he alleges that GMOs “pose a potential threat to consumers because medical research and scientific studies have yet to determine the long-term health effects of genetically engineered foods.”…
A federal court in California has denied Nabisco, Inc.’s request that it reconsider a previous ruling granting a motion to remand a consumer fraud class action to state court for failing to satisfy the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. Garcia v. Nabisco, Inc., No. 12-04272 (C.D. Cal., decided September 26, 2012). Because the product targeted by the plaintiff, “Wheat Thins 100% Whole Grain” crackers, is no longer on the market, the court rejected an estimate of expenses that would be incurred, if the plaintiffs succeed, to reformulate product packaging for other newly formulated products, “which are not the subject matter of this action.”
Naked Wines LLC has filed an action against Nakedwines.com, Inc. and Groupon, Inc. alleging that they have infringed its “family of erotically-themed marks” including NAKED WINERY®, NAKED WINERY VIXEN®, NAKED WINERY NAUGHTY®, and NAKED WINERY DIVA®. Naked Wines LLC v. Nakedwines. com, Inc., No. 12-01717 (D. Or., filed September 21, 2012). According to the complaint, Oregon-based Naked Wines has used the marks since 2005 and has “developed and maintains customers throughout the United States.” The marks have purportedly “become an asset of substantial value as a symbol of Plaintiff and its products.” Nakedwines.com, located in Napa, California, is allegedly “the U.S. arm of a UK-based, online company that sells and distributes wine from multiple producers.” According to the plaintiff, defendant Nakedwines.com, which is working with various producers to sell 400,000 cases of wine in the United States in 2013 and planning to open a winery in California under the name “Naked…
