Nearly 1,000 unnamed plaintiffs, who claim to be family members of individuals purportedly killed by terrorist organizations in Colombia’s Urabá region, have sued Chiquita Brands International, Inc., alleging that throughout the 1990s and at least until 2004, the company “funded, armed, and otherwise supported” these organizations “to produce bananas in an environment free from labor opposition and social disturbances.” Does 1 Through 976 v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., No. 10-404 (D.D.C., filed March 9, 2010). The plaintiffs allege that “[t]he deaths of Plaintiffs’ relatives were a direct, foreseeable, and intended result of Chiquita’s illegal and tortuous support of terrorist organizations.” According to the complaint, the plaintiffs bring their claims anonymously for fear of “violent reprisals, intimidation and death at the hands of the paramilitaries still operating in Colombia.” Their counsel “or his employees have interviewed each of the Doe Plaintiffs and summarized the details of each incident.” The complaint indicates…
Category Archives D.C. Circuit
A federal court in the District of Columbia has remanded to the D.C. Superior Court a lawsuit brought by the National Consumers League (NCL) against General Mills alleging that the company falsely misrepresents that Cheerios® “has drug-quality properties that would reduce total and ‘bad’ cholesterol levels when eaten.” Nat’l Consumers League v. General Mills, Inc., No. 09-01881 (D.D.C., decided January 15, 2010). The cereal maker removed the case to federal court claiming that it was removable either as a class action under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) or under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. The NCL disclaimed Article III standing because it did not sustain any injury in fact, but was instead bringing the suit under the “private attorney general” provision of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act. This provision allows a person to bring an action on behalf of the general public to seek relief “from the use by…
A federal court in the District of Columbia has dismissed claims that the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) violates a number of federal and state laws, including a religious freedom statute and constitutional protections. Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund v. Vilsack, No. 08-1546 (D.D.C., decided July 23, 2009). Dubbed in the press as the “mark of the beast” lawsuit, the complaint, brought by farmers “who raise livestock in a sustainable manner,” contends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) coerced Michigan’s Department of Agriculture to adopt uniform NAIS requirements that threaten their way of life by gathering information into a national database against their wills and in violation of their religious beliefs. Among the complainants are Amish farmers who apparently believe (i) they have been given dominion and control over animals, and that control has now been given to state and federal agencies; (ii) they are not permitted to take the NAIS…
A federal court in the District of Columbia has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to produce certain records about the pesticide clothianidin and lists of potentially protected documents to the Natural Resources Defense Council, which sought the information under a Freedom of Information Act Request submitted in July 2008. Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, No. 08-1429 (D.D.C., decided June 23, 2009). According to the court, the information related to “the use of the pesticide clothianidin on crops in the United States, EPA’s evaluation of the safety of the pesticide on bees, studies submitted by chemical manufacturers relating to the toxicity of the pesticide to bees, and communications with other federal or foreign agencies regarding environmental risks posed by the pesticide.” The day before the court filed its ruling establishing a schedule for the document production, EPA announced that it had developed a “pollinator protection strategic plan.” The plan, created…
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the owners of a dairy are not required to first exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a constitutional challenge to Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act amendments. Hettinga v. U.S., No. 07-5403 (D.C. Cir., decided April 3, 2009). The amendments codified certain rule changes that the Secretary of Agriculture made to a program that regulates payments from milk handlers (processors and distributors) to milk producers (farmers) and is intended to protect producers from price fluctuations. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against enforcement of the secretary’s rule, and, while that proceeding was pending before a federal court in Texas, Congress amended the law. The plaintiffs then filed a complaint in a D.C. district court alleging that “the Amendments are unconstitutional as a bill of attainder and a denial of due process and equal protection because only the Hettingas are subject to them.” The district court…
Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. has sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seeking a declaration that the agency has “engaged in a pattern or practice that constitutes agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed” in connection with several cantaloupe shipments from Guatemala. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. v. U.S., No. 08-02161 (D.D.C., filed December 11, 1008). According to the complaint, the FDA denied release of the shipments until it completed testing for salmonella. The FDA has purportedly failed to respond to company requests for expedited testing and has yet to release the fruit, which is “overripening” and will cost the company more than $4.5 million in losses. A 10-day hold in 2007 allegedly cost the company almost $1 million. Del Monte claims that independent tests have failed to show that the shipments are infected with salmonella and contends that it “has never had a positive test for salmonella…
Whole Foods Market, Inc., concluding that it cannot get a fair hearing before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in proceedings over the competitive effect of its merger with Wild Oats Markets, Inc., has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to terminate the proceedings as fundamentally flawed under the Due Process Clause. Whole Foods Market, Inc. v. FTC, No. 08-02121 (D.D.C., filed December 8, 2008). The FTC lifted a stay on its administrative proceedings shortly after a federal appeals court, reversing a district court ruling denying the FTC’s request to stop the merger, ruled that the commission could proceed with its preliminary-injunction proceeding in the courts. The appeals court remanded the case for the district court to consider whether the equities favor the FTC now that the merger has taken place and Whole Foods has closed or sold a number of Wild Oats stores. Among other matters, Whole Foods claims that…
According to a press report, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has refused the request of Whole Foods Market, Inc. that the court reconsider, en banc, a July 2008 decision by a three-judge appellate court panel reviving the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust challenge to the company’s merger with Wild Oats Markets, Inc. More information about the panel’s divided ruling appears in issue 269 of this Update. The commission will conduct administrative hearings on the merger in February 2009. While the merger was completed in August 2007, the commission could apparently try to stop further integration of the companies’ operations or require Whole Foods to sell some properties. In a statement, Whole Foods reportedly indicated its intent to vigorously defend the administrative proceedings, “even though we believe it is an unfair process and a violation of the company’s due process rights.” See Dow Jones Newswires, November 21, 2008. Meanwhile, a Chicago…
