Taco Bell® has launched a nationwide public relations campaign calling for an apology from the law firm that voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the company misrepresented the beef filling in its taco and burrito products. Obney v. Taco Bell Corp., No. 11-00101 (C.D. Cal., notice of dismissal filed April 18, 2011). Additional information about the putative class action appears in Issue 379 of this Update. The company apparently launched the campaign “to make sure consumers know that it has not changed products, ingredients or advertising despite what the Beasley Allen law firm has claimed.” According to a news source, the firm said, “From the inception of this case, we stated that if Taco Bell would make certain changes regarding disclosure and marketing of its ‘seasoned beef’ product, the case would be dismissed.” Taco Bell® asks the attorneys, “Would it kill you to say you’re sorry?” See Taco Bell® News Release,…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
McDonald’s Corp. has filed a motion to dismiss a putative class action seeking to stop the company from advertising and selling to children its allegedly “unhealthy Happy Meals” with toys. Parham v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 11-00511 (N.D. Cal., motion filed April 18, 2011). Details about the lawsuit appear in Issue 375 of this Update. The company contends that the plaintiff lacks standing to sue under the unfair competition law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act or false advertising law and argues that the complaint is the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s “attempt to distort state consumer protection law beyond recognition” to stop McDonald’s from selling Happy Meals containing toys in California. According to the motion, the plaintiff does not allege physical harm, reliance on the company’s advertising (that is, “Plaintiff does not allege that her own children saw any particular advertisement or made a single purchase from McDonald’s”), or identify…
Seeking a declaration about respective indemnity obligations, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. has filed a complaint in a California federal court against several other insurance companies in a dispute stemming from a neurological injury allegedly caused by the mahi-mahi fish served in a fish burrito at a Rubio’s Restaurant. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 11-00755 (S.D. Cal., filed April 11, 2011). The injured consumer apparently seeks damages in excess of $7 million. The insurance defendants are allegedly defending the fish supplier and restaurant in the personal-injury action, and National Union claims that its policy provides excess insurance only and that the other carriers have a duty to indemnify the insureds first.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the owner of peach and pear orchards in Oregon violated the law by crediting its seasonal workers’ housing costs toward their minimum wage and by paying them the day after their last workday. Bobadilla-German v. Bear Creek Orchards, Inc., Nos. 10-35205, 10-35268 (9th Cir., decided April 12, 2011). The owner recruited several hundred seasonal farm workers in Arizona for the month-long harvest in 2004-2006 and offered them optional on-site housing and meals. The company charged $5-$7 a day for housing and deducted that amount from workers’ paychecks, crediting it toward their minimum wage. “In many instances, if housing costs were not credited toward the workers’ minimum wage, their wage would have been below the lawful minimum wage.” The workers generally received their final paychecks on the day following their last day of work. A class of workers sued the company, alleging…
A federal court in California has determined that some putative class claims can proceed against a company that allegedly makes false and misleading statements about its guacamole and spicy bean dip products. Henderson v. Gruma Corp., No. 10-04173 (C.D. Cal., decided April 11, 2011). The plaintiffs’ first amended complaint alleged five causes of action for violations of the state’s unfair competition and false advertising laws and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. They claimed that the statements “0 g trans fat,” “with garden vegetables,” made in “the authentic tradition,” “0 g cholesterol,” and “all natural,” as to either or both products were false and misleading. The court first determined that the named plaintiffs, including a woman who recently brought and voluntarily dismissed similar claims against Hostess Brands, Inc., adequately alleged injury-in-fact to establish standing under Proposition 64. They alleged that they (i) “paid more for Mission Guacamole and Mission Bean Dip,…
The company that makes Johnny Love Vodka® has filed a trademark infringement suit against the companies making “Pucker Vodka,” alleging that the lip imprint on the Pucker labels is likely to confuse consumers because of its similarity to the registered lip imprint on the plaintiff’s flavored-vodka bottles. JL Beverage Co., LLC v. Fortune Brands, Inc., No. 11-00417 (D. Nev., filed March 18, 2011). According to the complaint, JL Beverage Co. has used the Johnny Love Vodka mark, which incorporates a parted lip imprint as the “o” in the word “Love,” since 2004 and registered it in 2005. The lipstick color apparently varies depending on the vodka’s flavor. Alleging that the defendants recently began promoting and selling a line of flavored vodkas with a label incorporating a “nearly identical” parted lip imprint in varying colors, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, an order to recall and destroy all infringing products, an accounting, compensatory…
The Center for Food Safety, Earthjustice and a number of other public interest groups have sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging its decision to deregulate genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 11-1310 (N.D. Cal., filed March 18, 2011). Other plaintiffs include the Cornucopia Institute, Geertson Seed Farms, which successfully challenged a previous agency decision to deregulate GE alfalfa, the Sierra Club, and organizations representing the interests of organic and family farmers. The complaint alleges that the environmental impact statement (EIS) that USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prepared to support its deregulation decision violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Plant Protection Act (PPA) and Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs note that the court-ordered EIS “is the first (and only) EIS APHIS has ever completed for any GE crop, in over fifteen years of approving GE crops for commercial use.” Seeking…
A group calling itself “The Ethereal Enigmatic Euphoric Movement Towards Civilized Hedonism, Ltd.” has sued Idaho in federal court, alleging that a state law allowing cities to “prohibit the sale of distilled spirits” violates members’ fundamental right to practice their religion. The Ethereal Enigmatic Euphoric Movement Towards Civilized Hedonism, Ltd. v. Idaho, No. 11-00097 (D. Idaho, E. Div., filed March 11, 2011). According to the complaint, the city of Preston in Franklin County has relied on the state law to forbid the sale of liquor by the drink. The plaintiff contends that this happened because more than 80 percent of local voters belong to The Church of Christ of the Latter Day Saints, whose members allegedly “believe that drinking alcoholic beverages is a mortal sin.” The plaintiff alleges that these voters “are allowed to force their morality on those of us who don’t believe in their religion,” and that, in fact,…
A federal court in California recently dismissed with prejudice a claim against a school district and some of its personnel filed by the parents of a child with an allergy to nuts; they alleged that the defendants threatened harm to the child by refusing to keep him in a nut free environment, which threat was undertaken to discourage the parents from exercising a legal right, i.e., requesting accommodations for him, in violation of state law. McCue v. S. Fork Union Elementary Sch., No. 10-00233 (E.D. Cal., decided February 7, 2011). The parents also alleged harm from an unspecified person giving the child a peanut butter cookie. Because the third amended complaint did not allege all of the facts needed to state a claim under the law and because “[s]erving a child a peanut butter cookie is not an inherently violent act,” the court concluded that the complaint did not allege…
A California court has issued a statement of decision in support of its July 2010 oral ruling vacating a judgment in favor of plaintiffs who alleged they had been rendered sterile from chemicals used on Nicaraguan banana plantations. Tellez v. Dole Food Co., Inc., No. BC 312852 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., statement filed March 11, 2011). According to the court, the plaintiffs’ attorneys “coached their clients to lie about working on banana farms, forged work certificates to create the appearance that their clients had worked on Dole contracted farms, and faked lab results to create the impression that their clients were sterile.” The court also stated that the attorneys “tampered with witnesses,” “threatened witnesses and took other actions to carry out the fraud.” The court held more than 20 hearings, presiding over a year-long evidentiary process, and “reviewed the sworn testimony of 27 protected witnesses describing the fraud at…
