A federal court has awarded $90.8 million to the attorneys who represented African-American farmers in litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture alleging discrimination in the loan application process. In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litig., No. 08-0511 (D.D.C., decided July 11, 2013). Additional details about class counsels’ request appear in Issue 405 of this Update. Explaining the challenges counsel faced, their extensive efforts to secure an award for the class of farmers in excess of $1 billion, the millions they incurred in unreimbursed expenses, as well as the hours devoted to assisting the Claims Administrator during the claims process, the court found an award representing 7.4 percent of the claims fund reasonable. According to the court, “Class counsel have undertaken the immense challenge presented by this action with the utmost professionalism and integrity, exhibiting skill, diligence, and efficiency in all aspects of their duties.”
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
A coalition of animal rights organizations has sued U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), claiming that the agency failed to conduct a required environmental review before granting the application of a “horse slaughter plant operator in New Mexico, bringing the nation closer to its first horse slaughter operation since federal courts and state lawmakers shuttered the last three U.S.-based plants in 2007.” Front Range Equine Rescue v. Vilsack, No. 13-3034 (N.D. Cal., San Francisco Div., filed July 2, 2013). The parties agreed to voluntarily transfer the suit to the District of New Mexico as a more appropriate venue, and the court entered an order granting the transfer on July 10, 2013. Because the defendants advised the plaintiffs that no federal inspections at horse slaughter facilities will take place before July 29, the court vacated its expedited scheduling order. In their complaint,…
Trade organizations representing the interests of cattle and pork producers and meat processors in Canada and the United States have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging country-of-origin (COOL) labeling regulations that took effect May 23, 2013. Am. Meat Inst. v. USDA, No. 13-1033 (D.D.C., filed July 8, 2013). They seek declaratory and injunctive relief, an order vacating the final rule, attorney’s fees, and costs. Explaining that meat producers and processors in the United States, Canada and Mexico have for years freely “commingled” livestock born, raised and processed across their borders, the plaintiffs allege that new requirements forcing them to “list separately, in sequence, the specific country where the animal was ‘born,’ the country where it was ‘raised,’ and the country where it was ‘slaughtered,’” will impose significant costs and entail extensive detail and paperwork for no health or safety reasons. They allege that the COOL regulations…
A federal court in California has dismissed in part and granted in part allegations in a second amended, putative class complaint filed against three food and beverage companies for alleged violations of state consumer fraud laws in the labeling claims on a plethora of products including chewing gum, juices, cookies, crackers, granola, stuffing, and cheese. Ivie v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., No. 12-2554 (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div., order entered June 28, 2013). Information about a previous ruling in the case appears in Issue 473 of this Update. The court dismissed with prejudice (i) the plaintiff’s claim that a “natural flavors” label on Crystal Light® is misleading because the product contains artificial flavors; the court found that the two specific ingredients alleged to be “artificial” flavors are artificial ingredients and nothing in the Food and Drug Administration regulations suggests that potassium citrate and sodium citrate are flavors; and (ii) the…
A federal court in California has dismissed as preempted certain claims filed by a putative class alleging that Unilever deceptively markets “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter! Spray.” Pardini v. Unilever U.S., Inc., No. 13-1675 (N.D. Cal., order entered July 9, 2013). The dismissal was without prejudice, and the plaintiff has 30 days to amend her complaint. Other claims were also dismissed without prejudice because they were not sufficiently pleaded or because the plaintiff lacked standing to assert a claim under the consumer protection laws of the other states named in the complaint. A claim for unjust enrichment was dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiff claims that the product is deceptively marketed as having “0 fat” and “0 calories” when it actually contains 771 calories and 82 grams of fat per bottle. While the product label specifies that the no-fat and no-calories claim is per serving, and users are referred to…
The companies that make 5-Hour Energy have reportedly expanded a quest to keep their recipe from disclosure by seeking the application of a Tennessee law protecting trade secrets to requests made by the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance and state attorney general for all of the product’s ingredients and their amounts. Information about the suit that Living Essentials and Innovation Ventures filed in Oregon seeking the same relief appears in Issue 488 of this Update. Thirty-three states have launched an investigation into 5-Hour Energy, which purportedly contains more caffeine and other stimulant ingredients than other similar products. See The Tennessean, June 24, 2013.
Answering two of the questions certified to it by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, New York’s high court has determined that Starbucks Corp. can, under the state’s Labor Law, distinguish among its employees for purposes of sharing the tips customers leave in a jar on the counter. Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp., Winans v. Starbucks Corp., No. 122 (N.Y., decided June 26, 2013). Starbucks’ policy requires the distribution of pooled tips to baristas and shift supervisors. Both classes of employees spend most of their time performing customer-oriented services, such as taking orders, making and serving beverages and food, operating the cash register, cleaning tables, and stocking products. Both also work part-time and are paid hourly. Shift supervisors have minor supervisory responsibilities. Starbucks does not allow assistant store managers or store managers to receive any of the pooled tips. Both classes work full-time and are eligible for bonuses and benefits, such as…
Finding the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) proposed “target time-frames” “an inadequate response to the request that the parties submit a proposal regarding deadlines that can form the basis of an injunction,” a federal court in California will require the agency to publish all proposed regulations required under the Food Safety Modernization Act by November 30, 2013. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Hamburg, No. 12-4529 (N.D. Cal., decided June 21, 2013). The court further ordered FDA to close each comment period no later than March 31, 2014, and to finalize the rules no later than June 30, 2015. The order follows the court’s determination that FDA violated the FSMA and Administrative Procedure Act by failing to comply with the food safety rulemaking deadlines established by Congress. Additional details about the litigation appear in issues 481 and 487 of this Update.
A federal court in California has issued an order preliminarily certifying a nationwide class for settlement purposes and approved the class settlement in a case alleging that Barbara’s Bakery misled consumers by labeling its products as “all natural” with “no artificial additives,” “no artificial preservatives,” or “no artificial flavors,” when they contained genetically modified (GM), artificial or synthetic ingredients. Trammell v. Barbara’s Bakery, Inc., No. 12-2664 (N.D. Cal., order filed June 26, 2013). Under the proposed terms, the company would create a $4 million non-revertible fund to pay class member claims, an incentive award for the named plaintiff, attorney’s fees, and costs of notice and administration. Class members would able to recover up to $100 for the purchase of products including cereals, cereal bars, cheese puffs, fig bars, granola bars, Snackanimal® animal cookies, organic mini-cookies, snack mixes, and crackers. The settlement would also require the company to modify the labeling and…
Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Kellogg Co. in a California federal court alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling its Super Mario Fruit Snacks® and Pop Tarts® as “Made with Real Fruit.” Spevak v. Kellogg Co., No. 13-2767, Barnes v. Kellogg Co., No. 13-2768, Ford v. Kellogg Co., No. 13-2770 (N.D. Cal., filed June 14, 2013). Each plaintiff is represented by Benjamin Lopatin in the Law Offices of Howard Rubinstein. Plaintiff Alicia Spevak alleges that the “real fruit” claim is misleading because the fruit snack product “merely contains de minimis real fruit and unhealthy, unnatural ingredients, chemicals and preservative additives, in addition to merely containing apple puree rather than real fruit, which a reasonable consumer would not expect from a product claiming to be ‘Made with Real Fruit.’” Spevak seeks to represent a class of California product purchasers and alleges unfair, fraudulent and unlawful business practices; false and…
