A federal court in California has dismissed as preempted putative class claims filed against Target Corp. and Honeytree, Inc., alleging that they retail and manufacture honey products falsely advertised as “honey” or “pure honey” despite the absence of all pollen, an allegedly “defining characteristic of honey under applicable law.” Cardona v. Target Corp., No. 12-1148 (C.D. Cal., decided March 20, 2013). The court rejected the defendants’ challenge to the plaintiff’s standing, finding that she had sufficiently alleged an injury under Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011). But the court determined that the claims were preempted under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, agreeing with the defendants that the plaintiff “cannot plausibly allege that ‘pollen’ is a ‘characterizing ingredient’ of ‘honey,’ and that the ‘common and usual name’ of honey is honey, irrespective of pollen content.” According to the court, “the requirement that pollen-less honey be labeled as…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
In a nonprecedential summary order, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court ruling against Kosher Sports, Inc., a New Jersey-based provider of kosher food products, which had a 10-year contract with Queens Ballpark Co., the company that operates Citi Field, where the New York Mets play their home games. Kosher Sports, Inc. v. Queens Ballpark Co., LLC, No. 12-2162 (2d Cir., decided March 12, 2013). Kosher Sports claimed that the operating company breached the agreement by refusing to allow it to sell Glatt Kosher hot dogs and sausages and other products on Friday nights and Saturdays. It also claimed that Queens Ballpark failed to provide a suitable location for the company’s fourth cart to sell its products at the stadium. The court found that the unambiguous terms of the contract simply “set forth [Kosher Sports’] ‘rights’ to advertising space, tickets, and freedom from competition” but did…
According to a news source, a Michigan judge has lifted a gag order imposed on an attorney who posted information on his Facebook page critical of a proposed settlement of claims that a McDonald’s Corp. franchisee sold as halal certain chicken products without complying with Islamic standards; the court has also granted his request to reopen the class period thus extending the time for class members to object, intervene or opt out. Ahmed v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 11-014559 (Mich. Cir. Ct., Wayne Cty., order entered March 12, 2013). Additional information about the case and attorney Majed Moughni’s claims of unlawful prior restraint appears in issues 468, 471 and 473 of this Update. In her supplemental notice, Judge Kathleen Macdonald notes, “[a]s you probably know, there was a great deal of attention given to this proposed settlement from the news media (newspapers, television, radio and internet sources) and in social media. For…
The company that makes the Muscle Milk® line of nutrition products has agreed to settle putative class claims that it misrepresented the products’ nutritional value. Delacruz v. CytoSport, Inc., No. 11-3532 (N.D. Cal., motion to approve settlement filed March 7, 2013). Details about the complaint appear in Issue 403 of this Update. A court order leaving just one issue in the case—an allegation that labeling claims of “healthy fats” in a Muscle Milk® product could deceive because a reasonable consumer would expect the product to contain unsaturated and not saturated fats—is summarized in Issue 436 of this Update. Under the proposed agreement, the company would pay the equivalent of $5.275 million for awards to the named plaintiff and class members, a cy pres award, injunctive relief, class notice and settlement administration costs, attorney’s fees and expenses, and products in kind. Claimants with proof of purchase would receive up to $30 each;…
A scientist who was accused of falsifying data in research on the purported health benefits of red wine has reportedly sued the University of Connecticut, claiming that it wrongfully dismissed him and violated his civil rights in doing so. Das v. Univ. of Conn. Bd. of Trustees, No. 13-6039748 (Conn. Super. Ct., Hartford, filed March 5, 2013). Dipak Das alleges that he was not allowed to introduce exhibits and testimony or to cross-examine witnesses during his five-day dismissal hearing, the culmination of an investigation that apparently found that he had fabricated and falsified data. He also alleges that the university notified 11 scientific journals before the investigative report on which the termination was based had been completed to advise them that he had “committed research misconduct,” and that the university did this “as a means of coercing the plaintiff into settling by harming his reputation and standing in the scientific community.”…
A company that makes and sells a proprietary blend of purported “wellness” herbs as part of its line of gourmet coffee, teas and hot chocolates has sued one of its former independent business owners/operators (IBOs) alleging, among other matters, disparagement, breach of a confidential performance agreement and non-competition clause, and the misappropriation of trade secrets. SereniGy Global, Inc. v. Mendoza, No. 13-08243CA04 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Cir., Dade Cty., filed March 6, 2013). According to the complaint, the company relies on a network of IBOs to market and advertise its products and signed a performance agreement with the defendant to do so in March 2012. By October, the company allegedly “received information that Defendant had been making slanderous, derogatory and disparaging remarks about Plaintiff and its CEO in violation” of the agreement, was “divulging confidential information to a third-party,” and “had been disloyal and involved in moral turpitude by advising…
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in a California state court against California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which in January 2013 proposed listing the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) as a reproductive toxicant under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). ACC v. OEHHA, No. ___ (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., filed March 1, 2013). Further details about OEHHA’s proposed BPA listing appear in Issue 468 of this Update. According to ACC, the agency’s scientific advisory panel, relying on the same document that OEHHA claims supports the listing—the National Toxicology Program’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (NTP-CERHR) Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Bisphenol A—unanimously concluded in July 2009 that BPA does not satisfy the criteria for listing developmental toxicants under Prop. 65. NTP-CERHR apparently concluded that “the…
According to news sources, a federal jury in Texas has determined that Ralcorp Holdings, which makes bowl-shaped tortilla chips sold as store brands, did not violate trademarks or infringe patents on an allegedly similar product made by Frito-Lay and sold as TOSTITOS SCOOPS!®. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc. v. Medallion Foods, Inc., No. 12-00074 (E.D. Tex., decided March 1, 2013). Additional information about the lawsuit can be found in Issue 427 of this Update. Frito-Lay had sought an order requiring that the defendant cease making BOWLZ® and CUPZ® chips and $4.5 million in damages. See Businessweek, March 4, 2013; The Kansas City Star, March 5, 2013.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a challenge to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules requiring California almonds sold domestically to be treated with heat or chemicals to prevent the spread of Salmonella. Koretoff v. Vilsack, No. 12-5075 (D.C. Cir., decided February 22, 2013). According to the court, the almond producers who mounted the challenge had waived their claims “by failing to raise them during the rulemaking process.” They had contended that the USDA secretary exceeded his authority in requiring the treatment of all almonds “irrespective of whether they are contaminated” and that the secretary failed to determine that the treatment rule was “the only practical means of advancing the interests of the producers.” Finding no error in the lower court’s disposition, the court affirmed its grant of summary judgment for the secretary.
Putative class actions have been filed against the Anheuser-Busch Cos. (AB) in federal courts in California, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, alleging that “consumers receive watered down beer containing less alcohol than is stated on the labels of AB’s products.” Giampaoli v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 13-0828 (N.D. Cal., filed February 22, 2013); Wilson v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 13-1122 (D.N.J., filed February 25, 2013); Greenberg v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, No. 13-1016 (E.D. Pa., filed February 25, 2013). Claiming that the company uses a technology enabling it to create precise alcohol levels in its beer products, each plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class of consumers who have purchased AB products such as Budweiser®, Bud Ice®, Bud Light Premium®, Michelob®, Michelob Ultra®, Hurricane High Gravity Lager®, King Cobra®, Busch Ice®, Natural Ice®, Black Crown®, and Bud Light Lime®. Alleging violations of consumer fraud laws and breach of state and federal warranty laws, the plaintiffs…
