The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has denied a motion seeking to consolidate and transfer to a multidistrict litigation court three cases filed in federal courts against companies allegedly responsible for a 2009 E. coli outbreak involving contaminated ground beef. In re: Ne. Contaminated Beef Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2346 (J.P.M.L., D. Conn., decided April 17, 2012). According to the court, the cases do not “contain significant overlapping questions of fact sufficient to warrant centralization of the few involved actions,” and “the likelihood that additional actions will be filed concerning this E. coli outbreak—which occurred nearly two and a half years ago and affected under 30 individuals—seems low. With only three actions pending in two adjacent districts involved in this litigation, movant has failed to convince us that centralization is needed.” The court indicated that it would be “practicable and preferable” for the parties, courts and counsel to informally…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., which operates 1,250 “fast-casual” restaurants throughout the United States, has sued The Kroger Co. in Colorado federal court, alleging that the grocery store chain has infringed the CHIPOTLE® trademark by using the descriptor on its spicy fried chicken take-out products. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. The Kroger Co, 12-930 (D. Colo., filed April 5, 2012). According to the complaint, Chipotle has invested “tens of millions of dollars” “to create and maintain the goodwill of its CHIPOTLE® national brand,” which evidently includes a commitment to sourcing ingredients “in the most ethical and sustainable manner possible.” In addition to claiming monetary damages, Chipotle argues that Kroger’s use of the word “Chipotle” on its chicken entrée packaging has caused “irreparable harm to the value and goodwill of Plaintiff’s CHIPOTLE® Marks, as well as irreparable harm to Chipotle’s business, goodwill and reputation.” “Kroger’s use of CHIPOTLE… can only be explained by…
A California superior court has dismissed with prejudice putative class claims filed against McDonald’s Corp. seeking to enjoin the company from advertising Happy Meals® to children featuring toys. Parham v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 10-506178 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., decided April 4, 2012). Additional information about the case appears in Issues 375, 391 and 420 of this Update. While the court did not explain why it sustained the company’s demurrers to the plaintiff’s first, second and third causes of action, it did so without giving the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint. According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which was representing the plaintiff, consideration is being given to filing an appeal. In its memorandum of law in support of its demurrers, the company argued that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief under the state’s Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act…
A federal court in Iowa has dismissed claims filed by a legal defense fund and a number of raw-milk producers challenging Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations prohibiting the shipment of raw milk for human consumption across state lines. Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund v. Sebelius, No. 10-4018 (N.D. Iowa, decided March 30, 2012). According to the court, none of the plaintiffs alleged that “the FDA has applied or sought to apply the challenged regulations to them, and Wagoner’s contentions are merely conclusory and based on speculation.” Raw milk producer Eric Wagoner had apparently alleged that a Georgia Department of Agriculture official “ordered an embargo of raw milk that he had transported from South Carolina, where it is legal to buy raw milk, to Georgia, where it is not” and claimed that “the embargo was ordered at the direction of the FDA.” There was no evidence of FDA involvement, and because…
A federal court in Texas has determined that a trademark and patent infringement lawsuit involving Frito-Lay North America’s corn chip products can be maintained in the Eastern District of Texas because it has jurisdiction over the defendants and the defendants failed to show that it was “clearly more convenient” to litigate the matter in Arkansas. Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc. v. Medallion Foods, Inc., No. 12-74 (E.D. Tex., order entered March 30, 2012). Details about the case are included in Issue 427 of this Update. According to the court, after Frito-Lay notified the defendants that their BOWLZ product infringed its patent and trade dress rights, the defendants filed a complaint for declaratory relief in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Frito-Lay filed its suit the same day in the Eastern District of Texas. The Arkansas court stayed that action pending the Texas court’s ruling on jurisdiction and venue, noting that “[i]f the…
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed in part a district court dismissal of claims that being fed nutriloaf in a county jail subjected an inmate to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Prude v. Clarke, No. 11-2811 (7th Cir., decided March 27, 2012). The plaintiff was apparently serving time in a state prison facility but was transferred to and stayed in a county jail on several occasions during court proceedings on his post-conviction petition. He was fed only “nutriloaf,” “a bad-tasting food given to prisoners as a form of punishment” and, during his third stay at the county facility began vomiting and experiencing stomach pains and constipation. He ultimately lost 8.3 percent of his weight. According to the court, “[t]he defendants’ response to his suit has been contumacious, and we are surprised that the district judge did not impose sanctions. The defendants ignored…
A federal court in Tennessee has dismissed the two remaining claims in antitrust litigation filed by certain retail processed milk sellers against Dean Foods Co. and the Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. In re: Se. Milk Antitrust Litig., No. 08-1000 (E.D. Tenn., decided March 27, 2012) (ruling applies to Food Lion, LLC v. Dean Foods Co., No. 07-188). At issue were claims for violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (agreement not to compete and conspiracy to monopolize). The court found that the plaintiffs’ expert failed to “create a material issue of fact on the question of whether the price increases were ‘by reason of’ an illegal conspiracy in violation of the antitrust laws and Plaintiffs do not allege an injury of the kind which the antitrust laws are designed to prevent.” Because the plaintiffs were unable to establish antitrust injury, the court determined that the defendants…
A federal court in California has granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by Quaker Oats in consolidated cases alleging that the company falsely advertises products such as granola bars and instant oatmeal containing small amounts of trans fats as healthy. In re: Quaker Oats Labeling Litig., No. 10-502 (N.D. Cal., decided March 28, 2012). According to the court, the plaintiffs’ “primary contention” is that consuming “any amount of artificial ‘trans fat’ is unhealthy, and that therefore various aspects of the labeling on Quaker’s products” are false and misleading under California law. The court earlier determined that some of the claims were preempted by federal law. Additional information about the litigation appears in Issue 369 of this Update. Regarding the plaintiffs’ expanded pleadings, which complain of “various additional statements and images on Chewy Bars, Instant Oatmeal, and Oatmeal To Go Bars,” the court refused to…
Two California men who allegedly worked as cooks at a Riverside County Olive Garden have filed a putative class action as private attorneys general under the California Labor Code, claiming that they performed off-the-clock work, were not provided meal or rest breaks as required by law or paid overtime, and had the cost of shoes deducted from their paychecks. Romo v. GMRI, Inc., No. RIC1203891 (Cal. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty., filed March 19, 2012). They also claim that their employer failed to pay them promptly as required by law when they left their jobs. They seek to represent all non-exempt or hourly paid Olive Garden employees in the state. According to the complaint, the off-the-clock and overtime work the plaintiffs performed was necessitated due to the volume of work and frequent understaffing. Claiming unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, non-compliant wage statements, unlawful deductions, and wages not timely paid upon termination,…
A company that insured Basic Food Flavors Inc. has asked a court to approve its settlement in a coverage dispute concerning a 2010 Salmonella outbreak involving hydrolyzed vegetable protein, a flavorings ingredient used in processed foods. Employers Fire Ins. Co. v. Basic Food Flavors Inc., 10-1109 (D. Nev., motion to approve settlement filed March 21, 2012). The ensuing recall apparently affected more than 100 of Basic Food’s customers, in addition to downstream suppliers, distributors and retailers. Under the agreement, the insurance company agreed to pay its coverage limits of $11 million. According to a news source, a neutral administrator has approved more than $34 million in claims against Basic Food. See Law 360, March 22, 2012.
