A federal court in New York has determined that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) arbitrarily denied petitions filed by advocacy organizations in 1999 and 2005 requesting the initiation of proceedings to withdraw approval from certain uses of antibiotic drugs in livestock. Nat. Res. Defense Council v. FDA, No. 11-3562, (S.D.N.Y., decided June 1, 2012). The ruling follows the court’s March 2012 grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their first claim for relief. Additional information about that ruling appears in Issue 432 of this Update. The most recent ruling relates to the third claim for relief, that is, whether FDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it denied the two petitions “requesting that the FDA withdraw approval of certain uses of certain classes of antibiotics in food-producing animals.” The court first determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, disagreeing with FDA’s assertion that its November 2011 decision…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
The California Agricultural Labor Relations Board has filed a petition for injunctive relief against a Ventura County strawberry farming operation alleging unfair labor practices and seeking to stop the respondent from interfering with employees’ free exercise of rights under the labor code. State v. Montalvo Farms, LLC, No. 56-2012-00416985 (Cal. Super. Ct., Ventura Cty., filed May 9, 2012). According to the petition, the farm hires Mixteco farmworkers, most of whom speak neither English nor Spanish. Due to language constraints, these workers allegedly endure “worse working conditions than other agricultural workers, including pervasive undercounting of their strawberry boxes picked, supervisors who charge for rides to work, injuries on the job that are ignored, and outright discrimination due to their inability to speak Spanish fluently.” One Mixteco worker, who is fluent in Mixteco and Spanish, apparently worked at the farm for several years and became a spokesperson for the Mixteco workers. He…
A federal court in Pennsylvania has denied the motion for summary judgment filed by a Burger King franchisee sued for violating the civil rights of an African-American truck driver who alleged that restaurant employees spit in his sandwich before serving it. Goodwin v. Fast Food Enters. #3, LLP, No. 10-23 (W.D. Pa., decided May 16, 2012). This motion was based on the assertion that the plaintiff would be unable to establish that the defendant is liable for the “allegedly discriminatory actions of the employees” and a request to strike the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages. In a previous motion, also decided against the franchisee, the court determined that “there were triable issues of material fact concerning whether Goodwin’s sandwich had been spat into and whether the incident, if it occurred, was racially motivated.” According to the court, the doctrine of respondeat superior, may not, as argued by the defendant, apply in…
A federal court in California has dismissed with prejudice a putative class action filed in March 2012 against the companies that make a line of SoBe® beverages known as 0 Calories Lifewater®. Hairston v. S. Beach Beverage Co., Inc., No. 12-1429 (C.D. Cal., decided May 18, 2012). Further details about the case appear in Issue 429 of this Update. According to the court, state-law consumer-fraud claims based on the use of fruit names to describe the different Lifewater flavors and the use of common vitamin names instead of the vitamins’ chemical names are preempted by federal law which allows both types of labeling. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, said the court, “explicitly permit manufacturers ‘to use the name and images of a fruit on a product’s packaging to describe the characterizing flavor of the product even where the product does not contain any of that fruit, or contains no fruit…
A federal court in Kentucky has determined that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is not entitled to information about the medical examinations of Nestlé Prepared Foods employees in relation to a claim by one former employee that he was fired due to “genetic information” discrimination. EEOC v. Nestlé Prepared Foods, No. 11-359 (E.D. Ky., decided May 23, 2012). So ruling, the court rejected in part a magistrate judge’s recommended disposition and denied EEOC’s motion for enforcement of a subpoena. According to the court, the information sought was irrelevant because there was no evidence that any other employee had alleged violations of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000 0ff-1. While acknowledging that EEOC ordinarily “has broad access to evidence that is relevant to a charge being investigated,” the court was “not persuaded that it has free reign to conduct a broad, company-wide investigation based upon a single…
JibJab Media Inc., a digital media company known for its photo cut-out animated videos sometimes used as political satire, has filed a trademark infringement suit against White Castle, alleging that the fast-food chain has infringed its trademarks by launching a social media ad campaign called “Jib Jab Chicken Ring” to promote its “chicken rings” menu item. JibJab Media Inc. v. White Castle Mgmt. Co., No. 12 4178 (C.D. Cal., filed May 14, 2012). According to the complaint, JibJab allows paid subscribers “to personalize videos and images by uploading digital photos and inserting images of faces into JIBJAB® content.” White Castle allegedly named its promotion with the JIBJAB mark, and its online application “copies the look and feel of JibJab’s cut-out animation style and further mimics JibJab’s personalized content by offering users the ability to upload digital photos and insert faces into these video templates.” White Castle also allegedly “explicitly announced that…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against a company that sells Greek-style yogurt products labeled with the terms “evaporated cane juice,” “All Natural Ingredients” or “Only Natural Ingredients,” claiming that they are false and misleading. Kane v. Chobani, Inc., No. 12-2425 (N.D. Cal., filed May 14, 2012). According to plaintiff Katie Kane, the company includes on the ingredients list for some of its yogurt products the term “evaporated cane juice,” which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned other companies is false and misleading, and uses phrases containing the word “natural” despite making the yogurt with artificial ingredients, flavorings and colorings, such as “fruit or vegetable juice concentrate.” She contends that these product representations “mislead consumers into paying a premium price for inferior or undesirable ingredients” and “render products misbranded under federal and California law.” Seeking to certify a statewide class of consumer, the plaintiff alleges…
A federal court in Washington has dismissed franchisor Domino’s Pizza from litigation alleging that a franchisee’s use of automatic calls with a prerecorded message to numbers stored from previous orders violated state and federal laws prohibiting “robo-calls.” Anderson v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., No. 11-902 (W.D. Wash., decided May 15, 2012). While the claims against the franchisee and the telemarketing company that placed the calls remains intact, the court refused to certify a class because the plaintiff’s motion was untimely, the statutory damages alone would be significant, and the “burden of any award [which would be grossly disproportionate given the actual damages] would fall on a small business.” According to the court, Domino’s requires franchisees to use a phone system that can store customer numbers and introduced its franchisees to the telemarketer during a national convention in 2009. Domino’s also requires its franchisees to participate in advertising and promotions campaigns. Still, the…
A federal court in California has dismissed several of the claims brought in a putative class action against General Mills, alleging that the company misleads consumers with the package labeling for its Fruit Roll-Ups® and Fruit by the Foot® products. Lam v. General Mills, Inc., No. 11-5056 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 10, 2012). Additional details about the litigation, in which the Center for Science in the Public Interest is representing the plaintiffs, appear in Issue 414 of this Update. The court agreed with General Mills that label statements about the products’ flavorings, i.e., “naturally flavored” and “fruit flavored,” conform to federal law, and thus state-law claims alleging that these statements are misleading or deceptive are preempted. In this regard, the court noted, “the regulation allows a producer to label a product as ‘natural strawberry flavored,’ even if that product contains no strawberries. While the regulation’s logic is troubling, the Court…
A Texas-based tomato producer has sued a Canadian company in federal court alleging that its packaging and label for grape tomatoes infringes the Nature Sweet Cherubs™ patents, issued in 2010 and 2011, and trademarks, in use since 2007. NatureSweet, Ltd. v. Mastonardi Produce Ltd., No. 12-1424 (N.D. Tex., filed May 8, 2012). According to the complaint, the defendant’s “Angel Sweet” label copies the Sweet Cherubs™ label by using similar colors and a “winged tomato design mark.” Claiming that its mark, in which the company has made a considerable investment, is famous and distinctive, the plaintiff alleges a likelihood of confusion among consumers by defendant’s use of similar marks and packaging. The plaintiff also claims that the defendant’s grape tomatoes, in contrast to its own, “do not have the same consistent great taste throughout the year.” Alleging federal trademark infringement, dilution and unfair competition; unjust enrichment; and design patent infringement, the…
