A putative class action alleging that Dole Food Co. misleads consumers by claiming it is an environmentally friendly and socially responsible company despite purportedly purchasing bananas from growers using pesticides in Guatemala has reportedly been filed in a California federal court. According to a Hagens Berman news release, the suit, filed on November 13, 2012, alleges that Dole’s supplier destroyed wetlands and poisoned water sources. Steve Berman said, “Dole promised its customers it had an ‘unwavering commitment’ to environmental responsibility. Yet, it gave its business to a plantation that showed a complete disregard for the local environment.” See Hagens Berman Press Release, November 13, 2012.
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
The owners of the California-based Hallmark Meat Packing Co. have reportedly settled claims that they committed fraud under the False Claims Act (FCA) by supplying ground beef to school lunch programs without meeting contractual commitments to treat their animals humanely. The Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v. Hallmark Meat Packing Co., No. 08-00221 (C.D. Cal., partial settlement announced November 16, 2012). The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) brought the suit after it discovered and videotaped animal abuse at the meatpacking facility. Videotape of employees abusing non-ambulatory animals at the slaughterhouse resulted in the recall of 143 million pounds of beef in February 2008. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened in the litigation, which also involves the Westland Meat Company and other individual defendants. According to HSUS, Donald Hallmark Sr. and Donald Hallmark Jr. have agreed to pay $304,000 from their personal assets and will make structured payments…
A federal court in California has certified a nationwide class and Washington subclass of individuals who received purportedly unsolicited text messages sent by OnTime4U to advertise Papa John’s pizza products. Agne v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc., No. 10-1139 (W.D. Wash., decided November 9, 2012). An appeal was filed before the Ninth Circuit on November 26. According to the court, “OnTime4U apparently told Papa John’s franchisees that it was legal to send texts without express customer consent because there was an existing business relationship between the customers and the Papa John’s restaurants. Certain Papa John’s franchisees, including at least some of the Rain City Defendants, provided OnTime4U with lists of telephone numbers of individuals who had purchased pizza from them. Those lists were generated out of the PROFIT system, a proprietary database that Papa John’s describes as a ‘point of sale data entry system.’ . . . OnTime4U removed landline numbers from…
A federal court has agreed to certify a class of California consumers allegedly misled by representations that AriZona Iced Tea® is “Natural” because it contains the processed, man-made ingredients high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and citric acid. Ries v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, No. 10-01139 (N.D. Cal., order entered November 27, 2012). But the court granted the certification motion “for the purpose of injunctive and declaratory relief only” thus foreclosing the recovery of “monetary damages, including restitution, refund, reimbursement and disgorgement.” The named plaintiffs had sought certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), which “does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages.” According to the court, the claim for monetary relief predominates the complaint, and the plaintiffs “seek individualized awards of monetary restitution which would require individualized assessments of damages based on how many products the class member had…
A federal court in California recently granted in part and denied in part the Hershey Co.’s motion to dismiss putative class claims alleging that the chocolate maker violates consumer fraud laws by making unlawful nutrient content, “healthy” and antioxidant claims on product labels; failing to comply with chocolate product standards of identity or to use common names for ingredients; making unlawful sugar-free claims; and using improper serving sizes. Khasin v. The Hershey Co., No. 12-01862 (N.D. Cal., order entered November 9, 2012). Because the plaintiff’s claims were based on parallel state laws that “mirror” relevant sections of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, the court determined that they were not preempted. In this regard, the court noted, “complying with the demand requested by Plaintiff in this cause of action would not require that Defendant undertake food labeling or representation different from the…
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a jury verdict tracing the source of E. coli-contaminated beef to Greater Omaha Packing Co. thus sustaining a third-party indemnification claim against it. Long v. Fairbank Reconstruction Corp. v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., No. 12-1412 (1st Cir., decided November 21, 2012). Two Maine residents sickened in the outbreak settled for $500,000 with Fairbank Reconstruction, which had purchased the meat from Greater Omaha and further processed it for sale in retail-sized packages by grocery stores. Fairbank sought indemnification from Greater Omaha, and the trial focused for the most part “on the ‘traceback’ analyses that led Fairbank’s experts to conclude that the contaminated meat could only have come from the [Greater Omaha] combos and not from another supplier’s product.” The court found that “ample evidence” supported the jury’s conclusion that Greater Omaha was the source of the E. coli contamination that sickened the two…
A federal court in Hawaii has dismissed in part a complaint filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against farmers and a recruiting company that allegedly mistreated Thai workers. EEOC v. Global Horizons, Inc., No. 11-00257 (D. Hawaii, decided November 8, 2012). The court granted the motion to dismiss “insofar as the Court holds that a 300-day limitations period applies to claims brought by Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6” relating to allegations of pattern or practice of discriminatory treatment because of national origin, race, retaliation, and/or constructive discharge. The remainder of the claims, to the extent they did not involve unlawful employment practices allegedly occurring more than 300 days before a charge was filed with EEOC, are not time-barred and will proceed. EEOC alleges that defendant Global Horizon promised Thai men temporary visas to work high-paying agricultural jobs in the United States, but took their passports, provided substandard housing…
A federal court in California has dismissed putative class claims filed against H.J. Heinz Co. LP by a factory worker alleging that the company denied employees full wages by improperly rounding their time records while also purportedly penalizing and disciplining workers for “clocking in past scheduled start times or clocking out before scheduled end times.” Mendez v. H.J. Heinz Co., L.P., No. 12-5652 (C.D. Cal., decided November 13, 2012). The plaintiff sought to represent putative statewide and nationwide Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) classes and alleged violations of the California Labor Code—failure to pay all wages, failure to pay minimum wages owed, failure to timely pay wages at separation, failure to provide accurate wage statements—and violation of the California Business and Professions Code. He also asserted a claim for violation of the FLSA on behalf of the nationwide class. The court agreed with the defendants that the plaintiff failed to…
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has determined, as a matter of first impression, that Starbucks Corp. violated a Massachusetts law prohibiting restaurant tips to be shared with employees who have managerial responsibilities, because the “upscale coffee house” chain allowed tips collected in tip jars by the cash registers of its Massachusetts shops to be shared by shift supervisors and baristas. Matamoros v. Starbucks Corp., Nos. 12-1189, -1277 (1st Cir., decided November 9, 2012). Massachusetts apparently amended a tip-sharing law in 2004. Under the earlier version, the courts applied a “primary duty” test to decide whether an employee could participate in a tips pool—if the primary duty was to serve customers, he could participate; if the primary duty was to manage, she was ineligible. After amendment, the legislature clearly defined a “wait staff employee” as someone, among other matters, “who has no managerial responsibility.” The court agreed with the plaintiffs…
A Colorado resident has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative nationwide class against Pepperidge Farm, Inc., alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling its Cheddar Goldfish crackers “natural,” because they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) “in the form of soy and/or soy derivatives.” Bolerjack v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., No. 12-2918 (D. Colo., filed November 6, 2012). Claiming damages in excess of $5 million, the plaintiff claims that she “purchased the Product believing it to be ‘Natural’ because he [sic] read and relied on Pepperidge Farm’s material statement that the Product is ‘Natural,’ prominently displayed on the Product’s front labeling/packaging. Plaintiff has been damaged by her purchase of the Product because the labeling and advertising for the Product was and is false and/or misleading under Colorado law; therefore, the Product is worth less than what Plaintiff paid for it and/ or Plaintiff did not receive what he [sic]…
