A federal court in California has granted in part the motion to dismiss filed by Arizona Beverages USA LLC, in a putative class action alleging the violation of consumer fraud and false advertising laws due to company representations that its products are “Natural,” “All Natural” and “100% Natural.” Ries v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, No. 10-01139 (N.D. Cal., decided August 25, 2011). The plaintiffs contend that the products are not natural in that they contain high-fructose corn syrup and an artificially produced citric acid. At issue in the defendants’ motion was whether the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded the claims in their first amended complaint under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). According to the court, the complaint adequately pleaded fraud in connection with the plaintiffs’ allegations arising out of the product labels. The court concluded, “These allegations are not inherently implausible and are sufficient for purposes of Rule 9(b).” The…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
A Jewish California resident who claims to be a vegetarian has filed a putative class action against Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., alleging that the company failed to adequately warn consumers that its pinto beans are prepared with or contain bacon or pork. Shenkman v. Chipotle Mex. Grill, Inc., No. BC467980 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed August 19, 2011). According to the complaint, the company does not disclose in its in-store menus that pinto beans contain pork, and, when specifically asked, employees informed the plaintiff that the pinto beans did not contain bacon or pork. Relying on these representations, the plaintiff purportedly purchased and ate the beans to his detriment, financial and otherwise. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of California residents who “abstain from consuming bacon or pork” for “ethical, religious, moral, cultural philosophical, or health-related reasons” and purchased the pinto beans from any Chipotle restaurant in California…
POM Wonderful LLC, which has created a market for pomegranate juice beverages and other products, has sued Backside Beverages, LLC, alleging that the company has infringed POM’s trademark with its Pompis energy drink. POM Wonderful LLC v. Backside Beverages, LLC, No. 11-760 (D. Utah, filed August 22, 2011). POM’s complaint includes a comprehensive description of the actions it has taken and the $300 million it has spent to promote and protect its brand and trademarks since first introducing fruit-based beverages in 2002. According to the complaint, the defendant has tarnished POM’s registered trademarks “because ‘pompis’ is a slang Spanish term for ‘backside,’ that is, ‘backside’ of a person. In English, ‘pompis’ is equally derogatory,— combining the term POM and the term ‘pis’ which phonetically sounds like ‘piss’.” POM contends that such derogatory use of its marks intentionally trades on its goodwill “while at the same time tarnishing the POM brand.”…
The Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC), a non-profit advocacy organization, has filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seeking an order compelling FDA to issue a final response to NRDC’s October 2008 petition calling on the agency to prohibit the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in food packaging and other food-contact materials. NRDC, Inc. v. HHS, No. 11-5801 (S.D.N.Y., filed August 19, 2011). In June 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals apparently dismissed a similar complaint, agreeing with FDA that it had been filed in the wrong court. Additional information about that complaint appears in Issue 356 of this Update. According to the new complaint, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires FDA to respond to petitions like the one NRDC filed “within 90 days.” Yet, “ [m]ore than one thousand…
Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. has filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a federal court in Maryland alleging that the agency lacked an adequate factual basis after a Salmonella outbreak in early 2011 to conclude that the company’s Guatemalan cantaloupe supplier was the source of the contamination. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. v. United States, No. __ (D. Md., filed August 23, 2011). On the basis of that conclusion, FDA allegedly demanded that the company issue a recall or “suffer the consequences of an FDA consumer advisory questioning the wholesomeness of Del Monte cantaloupes.” The agency also imposed an import alert under which Del Monte is prohibited from importing cantaloupes from its Guatemalan source without proving the fruit is “negative” for Salmonella and other pathogens. According to Del Monte, “this prohibition will continue indefinitely into the future unless…
Plaintiffs in a class action certified by a California federal court in April 2011, have filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion to decertify the class in light of a case the U.S. Supreme Court decided in June. Johnson v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-61 (C.D. Cal., pleading filed August 22, 2011). The plaintiffs allege that class members were misled by the defendants’ representations that YoPlus® products had digestive health benefits. Details about the court’s certification ruling appear in Issue 385 of this Update. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants did not seek review of the court’s certification ruling and, in fact, agreed to the plaintiffs’ class notification program, which the court approved. The defendants purportedly assert that a U.S. Supreme Court ruling rendered 10 days later compels the court to decertify the class. Claiming that the defendants’ argument is untenable as an unwarranted expansion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding,…
A federal court in Illinois has reportedly dismissed on standing grounds the pro se claims of an individual plaintiff who alleged that the food packaging materials used by McDonald’s Corp., when discarded by consumers, pose a threat to the environment. Gencarelli v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 11-5573 (N.D. Ill., decided August 19, 2011). The plaintiff filed his complaint under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act and National Environmental Policy Act. According to the court, he lacked standing to sue because he alleged “a generalized grievance” only. To establish standing, the plaintiff was required to show a “concrete injury in fact, causation, and redressability,” which the court apparently found he failed to do. See BNA Daily Environment Report, August 24, 2011.
A federal court in Maryland has permitted groups representing environmental and fishing interests to intervene in litigation filed by Dow AgroSciences LLC and two other pesticide manufacturers against the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), seeking to overturn the agency’s opinion that three insecticides threaten the Pacific salmon. Dow AgroSciences LLC v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 09-00824 (D. Md., order entered August 23, 2011). In March 2011, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that NMFS’s biological opinion on the effects of chlorpyrifos, diazinon and malathion was judicially reviewable action under the Administrative Procedure Act, thus allowing the companies, which hold registrations for the insecticides from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to challenge the action before the district court. NMFS apparently provided the biological opinion to EPA in 2008 as part of EPA’s process of reregistering the insecticides for sale and use; they were first registered in the 1950s and…
A lawsuit has been filed in an Oregon federal court on behalf of a 10-month-old girl who allegedly became ill and was hospitalized after eating a meatball made with ground turkey contaminated with Salmonella. Lee v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., No. 11-993 (D. Ore., filed August 16, 2011). Represented by an attorney with food plaintiffs’ firm Marler Clark, the plaintiffs allege that the baby spent seven days in the hospital after her parents were advised that “Salmonella Heidelberg bacteria she had ingested from the defendants’ ground turkey product had gotten into her bloodstream, and she needed urgent care.” Seeking damages in excess of $75,000, the plaintiffs allege strict liability, breach of warranty, negligence, and negligence per se. They claim damages for “general pain and suffering; damages for loss of enjoyment of life, both past and future; medical and medically-related expenses, both past and future; travel and travel-related expenses, past and future;…
In an unpublished opinion, a divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel has determined that a district court erred in awarding Latino farm workers less than statutory damages for growers’ violations of Washington’s Farm Labor Contractors Act (FLCA). Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., No. 10-35397 (9th Cir., decided August 17, 2011). The court remanded the case with directions to enter a damages award of nearly $2 million. The class claims were reportedly filed on behalf of more than 600 workers who accused two state growers and a farm labor contractor of violating federal labor laws. The plaintiffs claimed that they were illegally and intentionally displaced in 2004 by temporary agricultural workers from Thailand. The federal guest worker program allows labor contractors to bring foreign workers into the United States only if it can prove that workers cannot be found locally. While the lower court agreed that the defendants had violated…
