A Florida resident has filed a putative statewide class action alleging that Frito-Lay falsely labels its snacks, including “Bean Dip products,” as “ALL NATURAL” despite the use of ingredients—particularly soy—containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Altman v. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc., No. 12-61803 (S.D. Fla., filed September 13, 2012). The gist of the complaint is that products containing GMOs should not be labeled “all natural” unless they also disclose that the products contain GMOs. The plaintiff contends that she would not have purchased the company’s bean dip if she had known the company “could not support its claim that the Product is all natural.” Seeking to represent a class of Florida consumers who purchased Frito-Lay “All Natural” products over the past four years, the plaintiff alleges violations of the state’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. She requests injunctive relief, restitution, actual damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs,…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
The day after a California court apparently refused to approve the settlement of class claims against the company that makes “All Natural Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream,” an Illinois resident filed a putative class action against the company in a New Jersey federal court, alleging that the product contains many unnatural ingredients including those that are genetically modified. Tobin v. Conopco, Inc., No. 12-5881 (D.N.J., filed September 13, 2012). The named plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of individuals who purchased the products since 2006 relying on the allegedly false “all natural” label. According to the complaint, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) tested the company’s products in 2010 and found that they contain “alkalized cocoa, corn syrup, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, or other ingredients that either don’t exist in nature or that have been chemically modified.” CSPI’s letter to the manufacturer, claiming that the products…
Finding that California law applies to a dispute between Costco Wholesale Corp. and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., a federal court has dismissed Costco’s claims for violations of Washington state law and for bad faith coverage by estoppel arising out of the insurer’s refusal to handle claims of personal injury from cheese that Costco sold. Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 11-1550 (W.D. Wash., Seattle, decided September 20, 2012). The court determined that, under the “most significant relationship” test applied in the context of a conflict of laws, “the most significant contacts between Costco and Nationwide occurred in California.” Because California law does not provide relief as to a number of Costco’s claims, the court dismissed them but gave the company the opportunity to amend the complaint by November 1, 2012. If it does not do so, the matter will be dismissed.
A federal court has reportedly denied the request of Canadian and U.S. foie gras producers to preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of California’s law barring the sale of food products made from force-feeding birds. Association des Éleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Québec v. Harris, No. 12-5735 (U.S. Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal., order entered September 19, 2012). More information about the case appears in Issue 446 of this Update. According to a news source, the court will issue a formal ruling on its denial of injunctive relief at a later date. A hearing on the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit is scheduled for November 19. See Law360, September 20, 2012.
A federal court in Rhode Island has reportedly agreed to enter a default judgment of $33 million against a spice company purportedly involved in a 2010 Salmonella outbreak affecting a salami product that sickened more than 250 people in 44 states. Daniele Int’l, Inc. v. Wholesome Spice & Seasonings, Inc., No. 10-155 (D.R.I., decided September 17, 2012). The court granted the request for default judgment filed by meat producer Daniele International, which was forced to recall in excess of 1.2 million pounds of meat. Health officials traced the contamination to the pepper supplied by the defendant, a company that was reportedly dissolved in April 2012. According to a news source, Daniele’s counsel is uncertain whether they will be able to collect the judgment. See The Wall Street Journal, September 17, 2012.
While a federal court in Florida has dismissed a putative class action alleging that Target Corp. violates consumer fraud laws by selling honey that does not conform to the state’s honey standard, it gave the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint and also found that (i) the plaintiff had standing to bring the claims, (ii) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard did not apply, and (iii) the claims were not preempted by federal law. Guerrero v. Target Corp., No. 12-21115 (S.D. Fla., decided September 4, 2012). The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because it failed “to provide any more specific details regarding how Plaintiff knows that Defendant’s honey did not contain pollen. Thus, the Court agrees with Defendant’s argument that Plaintiff’s Complaint, as currently plead (sic), fails to state a claim because it does not provide fair notice to Defendant regarding the factual basis for Plaintiff’s…
A federal jury has reportedly awarded $7.2 million to a man who claimed that he developed bronchiolitis obliterans, a debilitating lung disease also known as popcorn lung, from consuming two to three bags of microwave popcorn every day for six years. Watson v. Dillon Cos., Inc., No. 08-91 (D. Colo., decided September 19, 2012). Details about the case appear in issue 244 of this Update. The settlement that the plaintiff reached with one of the defendants, a flavoring manufacturer, is discussed in Issue 331 of this Update. According to a news source, the jury found that Gilster-Mary Lee Corp., which manufactured the popcorn, and a retailer were negligent for failing to warn that diacetyl, the butter flavoring chemical in the product, was dangerous. The manufacturer was found liable for 80 percent of the damages, and the supermarket chain was found liable for 20 percent. The retailer has indicated that it…
A New York resident has filed a putative class action in a California federal court seeking to recover damages allegedly sustained by pet owners whose dogs became sick after eating “Chinese Chicken Jerky.” Langone v. Del Monte Corp., No. 12-4671 (N.D. Cal., filed September 6, 2012). The plaintiff cites and quotes a number of items published on the Internet purportedly showing that the Food and Drug Administration had been warning, at least since 2007, that chicken jerky products could pose a threat to dogs. “Notwithstanding these warnings,” he claims, “Del Monte continued to market the product as being wholesome and Del Monte placed no warnings concerning their products on their packaging to date.” Seeking to represent a nationwide class of product purchasers, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law and breach of express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. He…
A New York resident has filed a putative class action against The Dannon Co., alleging that because the company adds “filler materials, such as water, corn starch, and Milk Protein Concentrate” to products that it sells as yogurt, the products contain “banned additives” and, as a matter of federal law, are not yogurt, are misbranded and “cannot legally be sold in the United States.” Conroy v. The Dannon Co., Inc., No. 12-6901 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 11, 2012). A number of allegations in the complaint, including a history of yogurt-making, are carbon copies of a complaint filed in a California federal court in August 2012 against Cabot Creamery Cooperative, alleging that its Greek-style yogurt cannot be sold in the United States for similar reasons. Filed by the same law firm, that case is discussed elsewhere in this Update. Seeking to certify a nationwide class and New York subclass of product purchasers, the…
A California resident has filed a putative nationwide class action with astatewide subclass against a yogurt maker that sells “Greek-Style Yogurt” which allegedly contains ingredients that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has banned from use in yogurt. Smith v. Cabot Creamery Coop., Inc., No. 12-4591 (N.D. Cal., filed August 31, 2012). According to the named plaintiff, the company sells its product as “authentic Greek yogurt” thus allowing it to “charge a substantial price premium. . . . But the price premium for Cabot Greek is even larger, because Cabot Greek has no value whatsoever. Because the product is adulterated, it cannot legally be sold at any price. It is worthless.” The plaintiff contends that by using whey protein concentrate and milk protein concentrate as filler materials to thicken the product, the company does not incur the time and expense required to produce real Greek yogurt. Among other matters, the plaintiff…
