A California resident has filed a putative nationwide class action against a company that makes low-calorie frozen desserts, alleging that they do not, as advertised, contain just “150 calories per pint.” Michelle v. Arctic Zero, Inc., No. ___ (S.D. Cal., filed August 21, 2012). According to the complaint, Arctic Zero’s Vanilla Maple dessert “has 46% more calories than the 150 calories advertised on the product packaging and reflected on the nutritional label” and the company’s “Chocolate Peanut Butter has 68% more calories than the 150 calories advertised.” Claiming that she would not have purchased the products had she not been misled, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (unlawful, unfair and fraudulent conduct), False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as unjust enrichment. She seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief; corrective disclosures; compensatory, consequential, statutory, exemplary, treble, and punitive damages; restitution; attorney’s fees; costs; and…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
Contending that Monster Beverage Corp. either misled or failed to disclose that it was improperly advertising, marketing and promoting its Monster Energy® drinks and thus filed materially false and misleading financial statements, a putative securities class action has been filed against the company in a federal court in California. Rausch v. Monster Beverage Corp., No. 12-2058 (S.D. Cal., filed August 21, 2012). The filing follows news that an unnamed state attorney general subpoenaed company records in July 2012 seeking information about “the Company’s advertising, marketing, promotion, ingredients, usage and sale of its Monster Energy® brand of energy drinks.” Details about that action are included in Issue 450 of this Update. According to a news source, the company’s stock declined nearly 11 percent the day after Monster disclosed the investigation in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. See Bloomberg, August 21, 2012.
A federal court in California has denied Chipotle Mexican Grill’s motion to dismiss putative class claims alleging that the company fraudulently represents that it uses only naturally raised meat in its menu items. Hernandez v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 12-5543 (C.D. Cal., order entered August 23, 2012). According to the court, “Plaintiff need not show that he consumed non-naturally raised meat on one of his visits to Chipotle [because] the harm alleged [is that] Plaintiff purchased food at Chipotle, at a premium, based on Defendant’s representations that non-naturally raised meat was not used there.” The court also determined that the plaintiff adequately alleged a claim for fraudulent concealment and denied as premature that part of the defendant’s motion addressing the class allegations. The court did, however, order briefing on whether plaintiff’s counsel “would be adequate counsel to represent the class if a class were certified.” In this regard, the…
Dole Food Co. has filed a motion to dismiss or strike claims in a putative class action alleging that its food product labels mislead consumers. Brazil v. Dole Food Co., Inc., No. 12-1831 (N.D. Cal., motion filed August 13, 2012). Identifying the plaintiff as a “repeat class representative” who recently received an incentive award in another lawsuit, Dole argues that his claims are preempted under federal law, he lacks standing because he has not been injured, the claims are not plausible, and he has failed to state a claim under California law. The company also notes that the case is “one of 24 (and counting) nearly identical ‘misbranding’ class action cases filed during a 15-week blitz by nine law firms from six different states,” thus making it an “assembly-line” complaint that follows “a common recipe.” In summary, Dole contends, “By this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks colossal damages, punitive damages, and a nationwide injunction…
A Los Angeles County resident has filed a putative class action against the Austrian and British makers of “Oxygizer” water, claiming that the companies “falsely represent that through a patented process they are able to hyperoxygenate water and that consumption of Oxygizer leads to a number of purported beneficial health effects.” Ghazarian v. Oxy Beverages Handelsgesellschaft mbH, No. BC489773 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed August 7, 2012). Noting that people cannot absorb oxygen through their digestive systems, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants mislead consumers by falsely claiming their beverage can aid athletic performance, transport oxygen to every body cell, strengthen the immune system, and help office workers in large cities make up oxygen deprivation. The companies purportedly claim that scientific tests support their product representations and that their water is patented; the plaintiff alleges that these claims are also false and misleading. According to the plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission has…
The day after district attorneys for three California counties filed a lawsuit against tuna producers alleging that they make quantity misrepresentations “by failing to meet the standard of identity for canned tuna products seasoned or flavored with broth, as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations,” it was announced that a $3.3 million settlement had been reached. California v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, No. 12-11729 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed August 2, 2012). According to the San Diego County district attorney, a California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) investigation discovered that the companies “failed to meet the required amount of tuna in cans packed with vegetable broth and added flavors.” Under the terms of the agreement and without admitting liability, each company will provide $300,000 in canned tuna to California food banks, and costs and penalties will be divided among the counties with each receiving $969,500. CDFA will be paid investigative…
A California Superior Court has reportedly dismissed a lawsuit filed by nearly 3,000 Philippine banana plantation workers who claimed that exposure to the pesticide 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) more than 30 years ago caused physical and mental injury including sterility, testicular atrophy, miscarriages, and cancer. Macasa v. Dole Food Co., No. BC467134 (Cal Super. Ct., decided August 8, 2012). More details about the litigation appear in Issue 405 of this Update. According to a company spokesperson, the claims were fraudulent and should not have been brought because no reliable scientific evidence links DBCP agricultural exposures to the injuries alleged. The company reported that an identical lawsuit filed 13 years ago in the Philippines was also dismissed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has apparently prohibited the pesticide’s use in the United States, classifying it as a probable human carcinogen. See Ventura County Star, August 9, 2012.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the “filed rate doctrine” does not bar the state law-based claims of dairy farmers alleging that milk marketing cooperatives (handlers) provided erroneous reports to the federal government which relied on them to set a minimum price structure for raw milk sales; as a result, the farmers purportedly lost millions of dollars. Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc., No. 10-16448 (9th Cir., decided August 7, 2012). Each of the four named plaintiffs in this consolidated proceeding filed claims on behalf of a nationwide class alleging (i) negligent misrepresentation, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and unjust enrichment, all under California common law; and (ii) violation of California’s Unfair Business Practices Law. The filed rate doctrine “‘is a judicial creation that arises from decisions interpreting federal statutes that give federal agencies exclusive jurisdiction to set rates for specified utilities, originally through rate-setting procedures involving the…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Smart Balance, Inc., alleging that the 100 mg of plant sterols in a single serving of the company’s spreadable butter products do not, as advertised, block the absorption of dietary cholesterol. Aguilar v. Smart Balance, Inc., No. 12-1862 (S.D. Cal., filed July 27, 2012). The named plaintiff seeks to represent either a multistate class of consumers or a California class. According to the complaint, studies show that, to reduce cholesterol, “a minimum of 0.8 grams, and preferably 2 grams, of plant sterols must be consumed daily.” Given the purportedly modest amount of sterols in the defendants’ products, the plaintiff claims that half a container would need to be consumed in one day “to realize even the minimum amount of cholesterol reduction benefit.” The plaintiff claims that she purchased the product relying on the cholesterol benefit representations and did not get…
Turtle Island Restoration Network and the Center for Biological Diversity have filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in a federal court in California against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to force the agency to act on their June 2011 petition seeking to reduce the allowable level of mercury in seafood. Turtle Island Restoration Network v. Hamburg, No. 12-03884 (N.D. Cal., filed July 25, 2012). The organizations claim that while FDA had 180 days, or until December 17, 2011, to respond to the petition, “[t]o date, FDA has neither granted nor denied the petition and has taken no action to reduce human exposure to mercury from commercial fish.” They request a court order declaring that FDA has violated the Administrative Procedure Act and requiring the agency to issue a decision on their petition within 30 days. The plaintiffs contend that FDA’s current action level for mercury in seafood…
