A federal court in California has given final approval to the $2.6 million settlement of a class action alleging that Diamond Foods falsely represented that the omega-3 in its walnuts provides health benefits. Zeisel v. Diamond Foods, Inc., No. 10-01192 (N.D. Cal., decided October 16, 2012). Additional information about the case appears in Issue 436 of this Update. While additional claims may be filed by class members until October 26, as of September 7, more than 23,000 class members had submitted claims, and they have been submitted at a rate of about 1,000 each week. The court issued its ruling after the parties provided supplemental briefing on the cy pres issue. Under the unpublished final disposition, the court indicated that any residual funds will be provided to the American Heart Association, which “provides education on issues relating to heart healthy food, including education about how to read food labels.” The court…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has denied a motion to centralize, for pre-trial purposes, 10 lawsuits pending in five districts against Gerber Products Co. and Nestlé USA, Inc. alleging that the companies “misleadingly advertise and market infant formulas and cereals as promoting immunity, digestive health, and visual and cognitive function because they contain probiotic cultures” and other ingredients. In re Gerber Probiotic Prods. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2397 (JPML, decided October 16, 2012). According to the court, five of the 10 lawsuits are already consolidated in the District of New Jersey where Gerber is headquartered. One of these cases was filed in California, “thus one transferor court already has concluded that under Section 1404 the District of New Jersey is the proper venue for this litigation.” Because the defendants filed section 1404 change of venue motions in the remainder of the cases, and if all…
The United Farm Workers has reportedly filed a lawsuit against the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) over its alleged “systemic failure” to enforce a 7-year-old regulation requiring farmers to provide water, shade and rest to employees to prevent heat illness or death. Bautista v. Cal/OSHA, No. ___ (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed October 18, 2012). The union contends that “[a]t least 28 farm workers have died of potentially heat-related causes since the regulation was first approved in 2005. This year alone, Cal/OSHA is investigating heat as a factor in the deaths of four people.” The complaint, filed on behalf of individual farm workers, the United Farm Workers (UFW) and UFW Foundation, alleges, among other matters, that Cal/OSHA has failed to (i) “conduct on-site inspections for complaints”; (ii) “evaluate the conditions alleged in a complaint when it does conduct inspections”; (iii) “issue citations for serious, repeat,…
Nestlé Waters North America (NWNA) has removed to federal court a putative class action alleging that the company failed to disclose that its Ice Mountain® 5-gallon bottles are not 100 percent natural spring water, “but are actually resold water sourced from municipal water systems.” The Chicago Faucet Shoppe, Inc. v. NWNA, Inc., No. 12-8119 (N.D. Ill., filed October 10, 2012). The named plaintiff, a company that contracted with NWNA in 2008 to deliver the water bottles to its Chicago office, filed the action on behalf of all purchasers in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Missouri under Illinois consumer fraud laws. The removal notice claims that under the Class Action Fairness Act, diversity of citizenship exists between putative class members and the defendant and that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5 million jurisdictional threshold. “According to NWNA’s records, since October 2009, more than $5,000,000 of Ice Mountain® brand 5-gallon bottled water has…
A coalition of industry and union interests has filed a petition seeking to enjoin or invalidate the New York City (NYC) Department of Health prohibition on the sale of certain sugar-sweetened beverages in servings exceeding 16 ounces from certain types of business establishments. N.Y. Statewide Coal. of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. NYC Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 653584/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty., filed October 12, 2012). The coalition contends that the Board of Health acted beyond its powers in adopting the prohibition and that it is arbitrary and capricious in its design and application. Members of the coalition include trade associations for Korean-American grocers, restaurants, beverage makers, and theater owners, as well as the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and a soft drink and brewery workers union local. According to the petition, the rule does not apply to beverages higher in calories than soft drinks, including alcohol-based drinks, wines,…
A coalition of industry and union interests has filed a petition seeking to enjoin or invalidate the New York City (NYC) Department of Health prohibition on the sale of certain sugar-sweetened beverages in servings exceeding 16 ounces from certain types of business establishments. N.Y. Statewide Coal. of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. NYC Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. 653584/2012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty., filed October 12, 2012). The coalition contends that the Board of Health acted beyond its powers in adopting the prohibition and that it is arbitrary and capricious in its design and application. Members of the coalition include trade associations for Korean-American grocers, restaurants, beverage makers, and theater owners, as well as the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and a soft drink and brewery workers union local. According to the petition, the rule does not apply to beverages higher in calories than soft drinks, including alcohol-based…
A company whose deli meat products were allegedly contaminated by the inclusion of the Salmonella-tainted red and black pepper sold to it by a supplier has sued the supplier’s insurance company to recover damages resulting from the products’ recall. Daniele Int’l, Inc. v. Penn-Star Ins. Co., No. 12-709 (D.R.I., filed October 9, 2012). According to the plaintiff, which was awarded a default judgment of $33.18 million in a suit against the supplier in September 2012, the defendant’s insurance policies extend to the supplier’s liability for the plaintiff’s losses and damages. The plaintiff also contends that the insurance carrier was notified about the underlying litigation.
Two commercial liability insurance companies have filed a complaint against Phusion Projects Inc., the company that makes Four Loko®, an alcoholic beverage containing stimulants such as caffeine, guarana and taurine, seeking a declaration that “they do not owe a duty to defend or indemnify” the company in personal injury and wrongful death actions filed against it in several states. The Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Phusion Projects Inc., No. 12-7968 (N.D. Ill., filed October 4, 2012). The underlying complaints involve a California resident who was shot to death by police after consuming the beverage and acting “in an irritated, agitated, and disoriented manner”; a New York resident who sustained injuries in an auto accident with a woman who had consumed the product and allegedly drove her car in a reckless manner; a New Jersey resident who died from a stabbing in an attack by a woman who had allegedly “imbibed Four Loko”;…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Campbell Soup Co. alleging that it falsely represents that some of its products are “100% Natural” when they in fact contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) “in the form of soy, corn, soy derivatives, and or corn derivatives.” Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 12-05185 (N.D. Cal., filed October 5, 2012). Specifically targeted in the complaint are the company’s “100% Natural Southwest-Style White Chicken Chili” and “100% Natural Healthy Request® Mexican-Style Chicken Tortilla Soup.” The plaintiff alleges that he “would not have purchased the Products if he had known that the Defendant’s Products are not ‘100% Natural’ because they contain GMOs.” Seeking to certify a statewide class of product purchasers, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. He requests injunctive relief; restitution; disgorgement; attorney’s fees; actual, statutory and punitive damages; costs; and interest.…
A California court has reportedly denied a motion to certify a class of Hard Rock Café employees who allege that the restaurant chain wrongly classified them as exempt employees and then forced them to assume the tasks of non-exempt employees without paying them overtime or allowing them to take meal periods and rest breaks, and otherwise provided inaccurate wage statements. In re Hard Rock Café Wage & Hour Cases, No. JCCP 4549 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., decided October 3, 2012). According to the restaurant chain’s counsel, the court determined that the putative class of kitchen managers lacked numerosity, the identity and number of class members could not be ascertained, and the named representative could not adequately represent the class. The court also apparently found that individual analysis of each employee’s work activities would be required to decide whether they had been properly classified as exempt. Counsel for named plaintiff…
