A federal court in California has denied a motion to dismiss putative class claims that Arizona Beverage Co. deceptively labels its products as “100% Natural,” “All Natural,” or “Natural,” despite using high-fructose corn syrup as an ingredient. Hitt v. Arizona Beverage Co., LLC, No. 08-809 (S.D. Cal., order entered February 4, 2009). The complaint also alleges that those beverages with fruit in the name are deceptively labeled because they “do not contain any substantial amount of the fruit named on the label.” The defendants sought to dismiss claims that they violated consumer fraud statutes by contending that they are expressly and impliedly preempted under federal law. The court summarily ruled that the plaintiff’s claims were not expressly preempted because they do not fall within any of the express preemption provisions of the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act. The court also ruled that the claims were not impliedly preempted because (i) the…
Category Archives 9th Circuit
A federal court has refused to dismiss putative class claims filed under California’s consumer protection law against a company that advertises its pasta sauce, which contains high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), as “all natural.” Lockwood v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 08-04151 (N.D. Cal., decided February 3, 2009). The defendant sought to dismiss the claims on preemption grounds and called for the class allegations to be stricken “because plaintiffs cannot prove reliance on a class-wide basis.” According to the court, the federal Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) does not apply to the “complaint as currently pled. Plaintiffs do not allege that defendant’s pasta sauce contains artificial flavoring, coloring or a chemical preservative; rather, they allege that the ‘high fructose corn syrup’ is not produced by a natural process and therefore the pasta sauce is not ‘all natural.’” The court also found that the claims were not impliedly preempted because “Congress has explicitly stated…
POM Wonderful LLC has reportedly brought false advertising and unfair competition claims in federal court against Welch Foods Inc. for marketing a product with little pomegranate juice as a “white grape and pomegranate” juice. POM Wonderful LLC v. Welch Foods Inc., No. 09-00567 (C.D. Cal., filed January 23, 2009). According to a news source, POM Wonderful has built a multimillion-dollar business by making and marketing the health benefits of a pomegranate juice-based product line. The company alleges that Welch has taken advantage of its success by developing an intentionally confusing and misleading product and implying “that its product is of the same composition and quality of blended pomegranate juices such as plaintiff’s blended pomegranate juices, when in fact Welch’s has substituted much of the valuable and beneficial substance of pomegranate juice with economically and nutritionally inferior juices such as apple.” POM Wonderful apparently alleges that Welch has violated the false advertising…
Food litigator William Marler has filed a second lawsuit against the Peanut Corp. of America (PCA) on behalf of a California family whose 3-year-old son allegedly fell ill and was hospitalized after eating Salmonella-contaminated peanut butter cracker sandwiches made with a PCA peanut butter product. Trone v. Peanut Corp. of Am., No. 09-418 (N.D. Cal., filed January 28, 2009). The outbreak, which has reportedly sickened more than 500 people across the United States and contributed to eight deaths, has led to one of the largest food recalls in the nation’s history. PCA expanded its recall from peanut butter and peanut paste to all peanuts and peanut products, including whole peanuts (dried, roasted or raw), granulated peanuts and peanut meal, processed in its Blakely, Georgia, facility since January 1, 2007. According to the PCA recall notice, the company sold its recalled products to institutions, food service industries and private label food companies in…
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a petition seeking review of a California Supreme Court ruling that allowed plaintiffs to pursue putative class claims alleging that grocery stores failed to inform California consumers about the artificial coloring used in the farm-raised salmon they sold. Albertson’s Inc. v. Kanter, No. 07-1327 (U.S., certiorari denied January 12, 2009). The retailers had asked the Court to find the claims preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The case should now proceed to trial. Food and Drug Administration regulations allow salmon farmers to augment the normally grayish pigment of farm-raised fish with chemicals, but also require that the use of coloring be indicated on product labels. Federal law does not allow individuals to enforce the law through litigation, but it does not, according to attorneys involved in the case, bar civil lawsuits for violations of state law. The litigation was brought on both federal and…
A California woman who claimed that Wendy’s International, Inc. violated state consumer protection laws by misrepresenting the trans fat content of its French fries and fried chicken products has entered a settlement agreement with the fast-food company. Yoo v. Wendy’s Int’l, Inc., No. 07-4515 (C.D. Cal., settlement filed December 2008). For purposes of the settlement, the parties agreed to the certification of a nationwide class of those who purchased Wendy’s fries and chicken for the past two years. Without conceding any liability, Wendy’s agreed to (i) eliminate trans fat from its frying process, (ii) submit to independent testing, (iii) donate $1.8 million to cancer, diabetes and heart associations, and (iv) not oppose a fee award of up to $1.09 million to class counsel in the Yoo action. Attorneys representing class claimants in similar litigation filed in New York and Florida will share the fee distribution. Wendy’s also agreed to attribute the $2.2…
According to news sources, litigation has been filed in California challenging a new law that prohibits the sale or distribution of food from nonambulatory livestock. One of the suits, filed in late December 2008 by the National Meat Association, claims that the state’s hog industry should be exempt. An association spokesperson reportedly indicated that “hog fatigue” causes hogs to lie down occasionally, but that nothing is wrong with these animals. The American Meat Institute (AMI) filed a motion to intervene, arguing that the law as a whole is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act. An AMI press release notes, “on some occasions all species can become injured even until the last minutes before processing, but an injury like a broken ankle does not automatically make livestock unfit for consumption.” The California law (A.B. 2098), effective January 1, 2009, amended the state penal code by proscribing any slaughterhouse use of…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied the request by Gerber Products Co. to rehear the court’s April 2008 decision overturning the dismissal of putative class claims that the company’s Fruit Juice Snacks® packaging misled consumers. Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., No. 06-55921 (9th Cir., amended opinion filed December 22, 2008). A detailed summary of the court’s April ruling appears in issue 258 of this Update. In its amended opinion, the court eliminated one sentence and reorganized two other sentences, but did not otherwise change its ruling that a detailed ingredients list in small type cannot shield a food manufacturer from liability for claims that its packaging misrepresents the quality of the product. “Instead, reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list contains more detailed information about the product that confirms other representations on the packaging.” The product at issue, intended for toddlers, is sold in a package with images of…
The federal government has sued a California dairy that ships raw milk to other states, claiming that the company falsely labels its products as “pet food” to exploit a purported loophole in the law about raw milk distributed in interstate commerce and makes claims that its products can treat or prevent a host of diseases without Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. U.S. v. Organic Pastures Dairy Co. LLC, No. 08-00692 (E.D. Cal., filed November 20, 2008). The complaint requests that the dairy be permanently enjoined from shipping (i) products across state lines whether labeled as “for human consumption or pet food” and (ii) “products with labeling that makes them drugs” under federal law. According to the complaint, the FDA issued the defendants a warning letter in February 2005, stating that distribution of raw milk in interstate commerce violates the law and that failure to comply could lead to product…
A California appeals court has determined that a misreading of prior case law led a trial court judge to erroneously overturn a jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who alleged that she was made ill from exposure to campylobacter at defendant’s restaurant. Sarti v. Salt Creek Ltd., No. G037818 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th App. Dist., Div. 3, decided October 27, 2008). So ruling, the court reinstated $725,000 in economic damages and $2.5 million in noneconomic damages and allowed the plaintiff to recover her costs on appeal. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, after determining, under a heightened causation standard, that reasonable inferences alone cannot prove a food poisoning case. The appeals court exhaustively analyzes the court’s reasoning in Minder v. Cielito Lindo Restaurant, 67 Cal.App.3d 1003 (1977), and shows how the court in that case misread prior case law “to preclude the use…
