A federal court in California has given final approval to the settlement of a wage-and-hour class action against Starbucks Corp., including less than half of what plaintiffs’ counsel originally requested as attorney’s fees. York v. Starbucks Corp., No. 08-7919 (C.D. Cal., decided October 29, 2013). Starbucks apparently objected to the request for nearly $4.5 million, excluding nearly $250,000 in unreimbursed costs, characterizing it as “astonishing.” Thereafter, the parties agreed to attorney’s fees and costs of $1.9 million, and the court found the request reasonable. Under the agreement, 14,800 employees will receive payments of up to $900, for a total of $3 million, for alleged denial of statutorily mandated meal breaks and wage statements that failed to list the applicable overtime rate in violation of the California Labor Code. See Law360, October 28, 2013.
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
A federal court in California has significantly narrowed the consumer-fraud claims that may be asserted against Frito-Lay involving a number of its snack products labeled as “All Natural,” “0 Grams Trans Fat” and “No MSG.” Wilson v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 12-1586 (N.D. Cal., order entered October 24, 2013). All claims dismissed were with prejudice. The court dismissed claims based on products the plaintiffs did not purchase, because they failed to specify how or whether the 85 products added in their second amended complaint were substantially similar to the purchased products. The court also dismissed any claims based on statements the company made on its website. According to the court, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may have warned other companies about whether their Websites constituted labeling, but it had not done so as to the defendant’s products. The court also said, “The website address appears below Defendant’s physical address,…
Three days after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) filed a motion for emergency stay pending appeal before the Ninth Circuit, the federal district court that had established November 30, 2013, as the deadline for the agency to publish notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for specific food safety rules under the Food Safety Modernization Act denied the motion for stay pending appeal that FDA filed before it in September. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Hamburg, No. 12-4529 (N.D. Cal., order entered October 21, 2013). Details about the emergency stay request based on delays attributable to the federal government shutdown appear in Issue 501 of this Update. According to the district court, FDA failed to show that it would be irreparably injured absent a stay. The court recognized that the agency was unprepared to issue a final rule on the intentional adulteration of food by the November 2013 deadline, “But…
A California resident has filed a putative nationwide class action against Lifeway Foods, Inc., alleging that many of its kefir, lassi and frozen yogurt products are misbranded under federal law and the state’s Sherman Law because they list as ingredients “Evaporated Cane Juice” or “Organic Cane Juice,” terms that purportedly render the products illegal. Figy v. Lifeway Foods, Inc., No. 13-4828 (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Div., filed October 17, 2013). The plaintiff avers that he and the class purchased these illegal products at a premium price and have sustained economic damages under the unlawful business acts and practices law. According to the complaint, the “unlawful sale of an illegal product is the only element necessary for the UCL claim. No reliance is necessary.” The plaintiff requests restitution, injunctive relief, corrective action, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest.
New York and California residents have filed a putative nationwide class action against Hain Celestial Group, Inc., alleging that its fruit and vegetable juice products, labeled as “Unpasteurized” and “100% Raw” are false and misleading because the products undergo high pressure processing, “which neutralizes the benefits of the live enzymes, probiotics, vitamins, proteins, and nutrients that would otherwise be retained in a raw and unpasteurized juice.” Stark v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 13-7246 (S.D.N.Y., filed October 15, 2013). The plaintiffs claim that they purchased a variety of these juices—“Red Juice,” “Gold Juice,” “Green Juice,” “Yellow Juice,” and “White Juice”—at a price premium, relying on representations that the products were, as labeled, able to deliver the nutritional benefits associated with a raw-food diet. According to the plaintiffs, raw juice products have, at best, a 5-day shelf-life, while the defendants’ products have a 30-day shelf-life, which is possible only with processing…
According to a news source, Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. has filed a trademark infringement action against the companies that produce and sell Popcorn Sutton’s® Tennessee white whiskey. Jack Daniels Props., Inc. v. J&M Concepts, LLC, No. 13-1156 (M.D. Tenn., filed October 18, 2013). The whiskey is apparently named after an Appalachian moonshiner who killed himself rather than serve a federal sentence after he was convicted of offenses relating to moonshine production. The defendants purportedly sold their product first in mason jars, but then switched to bottles that allegedly copy Jack Daniel’s bottle—“a square-shaped bottle with angled shoulders that house a signature and beveled corners, and labeling with a white-on black color scheme, filigree designs, and font style reminiscent of that of the Jack Daniel’s trade dress,” the complaint said. Alleging willful trademark infringement, deceptive trade, fraudulent misrepresentation, and unfair competition, the company seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of unjust profits and…
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has ordered the transfer of five cases brought by wheat farmers who allege economic injuries due to lower wheat prices, import restrictions and increased production costs after genetically engineered (GE) wheat was discovered in an Oregon farmer’s field; pretrial matters will be heard by a multidistrict litigation (MDL) court in Kansas. In re Monsanto Co. GE Wheat Litig., MDL No. 2473 (J.P.M.L., decided October 16, 2013). According to the court, the actions involve common questions of fact, and centralization in Kansas “will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions share factual questions arising from Monsanto’s conduct with respect to the development and field testing of genetically-engineered [sic] ‘Roundup Ready’ wheat from 1998 through 2005, and the alleged discovery of the Roundup Ready herbicide-resistant gene in wheat plants on an Oregon…
A Florida resident has filed a complaint on behalf of a putative class against Anheuser-Busch Cos. (AB), claiming that since the company began producing Beck’s Beer in the United States in 2012, it has misled consumers into believing that the product is still imported from Germany where it was made with quality ingredients for more than 225 years. Marty v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 13-23656 (S.D. Fla., filed October 9, 2013). According to the complaint, external packaging material does not indicate that the product is brewed in the United States with domestic ingredients, including Missouri River water. Rather, the external packaging for six- and 12-packs allegedly states that the product is “German Quality” beer “brewed under the German Purity Law of 1516” and that it “Originated in Bremen, Germany.” Individual bottles, however, state “in obscure white text on a silver background, ‘Product of USA—Brauerei Beck & Co.—St. Louis, MO.—12 FL. OZ.’”…
A federal court in California has denied the request of General Mills, Inc. to stay the proceedings in three putative class actions alleging that it misleads consumers by promoting various products as “100% Natural” given ingredients that are genetically modified or highly processed, such as high-fructose corn syrup, high-maltose corn syrup and maltodextrin. Rojas v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-5099 (N.D. Cal., order entered October 9, 2013); Bohac v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-5280, and Janney v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-3919 (N.D. Cal., orders entered October 10, 2013). So ruling, the court rejected the defendant’s request that it apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine, finding that (i) the issue of whether a reasonable consumer would be misled by the company’s product promotions was within the court’s purview, and (ii) it did not appear the U.S. Food and Drug Administration was inclined to decide anytime soon what the term “natural” encompasses. In Rojas,…
A federal court in California has dismissed certain claims, with leave to amend, in putative class litigation challenging various aspects of labels for Wallaby Yogurt Co. and Trader Joe’s Co. food products; it has refused to abstain from deciding the matters under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. Morgan v. Wallaby Yogurt Co., Inc., No. 13-296, Gitson v. Trader Joe’s Co., No. 13-1333 (N.D. Cal., orders entered October 10, 2013). Both suits include claims, among others, that the companies mislead consumers by using “evaporated cane juice” instead of “sugar” on their product labels. In Wallaby, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims because they had not plausibly alleged actual injury. Wallaby apparently said, “Plaintiffs paid for food products. They consumed the products without incident or physical injury. The goods were not tainted, spoiled, adulterated, or contaminated. They do not allege that the ingredients were…
