A Florida court has reportedly denied the motion to dismiss filed by organic and natural foods grocery chain Whole Foods Market in a case alleging that the company sold frozen vegetables harvested in a polluted area by the forced labor of Chinese prisoners. Se. Consumer Alliance Inc. v. Whole Foods Market Group Inc., No. 2009-92727-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 11th Cir.) decided April 20, 2011). The company purportedly certifies and sells the vegetables as organic. The plaintiffs, who are apparently seeking a declaration that the company violated deceptive marketing law, have twice amended their complaint to bring new claims, including deceptive trade practices and false advertising. Plaintiffs’ counsel Bruce Baldwin was quoted as saying, “They’re the biggest organic retailer in America with the biggest certifier in China working for them. They knew, but they kept selling the Chinese frozen vegetables as if there was no problem at all.” See Law360, April 21,…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
Taco Bell® has launched a nationwide public relations campaign calling for an apology from the law firm that voluntarily dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the company misrepresented the beef filling in its taco and burrito products. Obney v. Taco Bell Corp., No. 11-00101 (C.D. Cal., notice of dismissal filed April 18, 2011). Additional information about the putative class action appears in Issue 379 of this Update. The company apparently launched the campaign “to make sure consumers know that it has not changed products, ingredients or advertising despite what the Beasley Allen law firm has claimed.” According to a news source, the firm said, “From the inception of this case, we stated that if Taco Bell would make certain changes regarding disclosure and marketing of its ‘seasoned beef’ product, the case would be dismissed.” Taco Bell® asks the attorneys, “Would it kill you to say you’re sorry?” See Taco Bell® News Release,…
U.S. attorneys in New York have reportedly secured court approval of a consent decree with three companies that allegedly exported meat containing vertebral column to Japan in violation of U.S. trade requirements. The settlement resolves an action filed in March 2011 alleging that the companies exported veal containing ineligible bone and tissue fragments, which action resulted in Japan closing its borders to all U.S. beef products for six months, purportedly costing the industry $500 million in losses. Details about the case appear in Issue 385 of this Update. Under the agreement, the companies neither admit nor deny the allegations,but they agree to “permanently provide additional access,record-keeping,and reporting in order to ensure ongoing compliance.” The decree alsoentitles the United States “to substantial andescalating monetary relief in theevent of future violations for the next three years--$10,000 for the first violation,$25,000 for the second,and $50,000 for each violation thereafter.” Thedecree allows the U.S.…
McDonald’s Corp. has filed a motion to dismiss a putative class action seeking to stop the company from advertising and selling to children its allegedly “unhealthy Happy Meals” with toys. Parham v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 11-00511 (N.D. Cal., motion filed April 18, 2011). Details about the lawsuit appear in Issue 375 of this Update. The company contends that the plaintiff lacks standing to sue under the unfair competition law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act or false advertising law and argues that the complaint is the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s “attempt to distort state consumer protection law beyond recognition” to stop McDonald’s from selling Happy Meals containing toys in California. According to the motion, the plaintiff does not allege physical harm, reliance on the company’s advertising (that is, “Plaintiff does not allege that her own children saw any particular advertisement or made a single purchase from McDonald’s”), or identify…
Seeking a declaration about respective indemnity obligations, National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. has filed a complaint in a California federal court against several other insurance companies in a dispute stemming from a neurological injury allegedly caused by the mahi-mahi fish served in a fish burrito at a Rubio’s Restaurant. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., No. 11-00755 (S.D. Cal., filed April 11, 2011). The injured consumer apparently seeks damages in excess of $7 million. The insurance defendants are allegedly defending the fish supplier and restaurant in the personal-injury action, and National Union claims that its policy provides excess insurance only and that the other carriers have a duty to indemnify the insureds first.
According to the Department of Justice, a Massachusetts-based fish packer has been convicted of several criminal charges for falsely labeling packages of frozen fish fillets. A federal jury in Boston found Stephen Delaney guilty of a felony violation of the Lacey Act for falsely labeling $8,000 worth of frozen pollock, a product of China, as more expensive cod loins, a product of Canada. The jury also convicted Delaney of one misdemeanor violation for misbranding food under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; he allegedly placed into interstate commerce $203,000 worth of Chinese frozen fish fillets falsely labeled as products of Canada, Holland, Namibia, and the United States. Evidence at trial apparently indicated that he also changed 4 oz. labels on some packages to 5 oz. labels. Delaney will be sentenced on June 8, 2011; he faces up to six years in jail and up to $350,000 in fines. See Department of…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the owner of peach and pear orchards in Oregon violated the law by crediting its seasonal workers’ housing costs toward their minimum wage and by paying them the day after their last workday. Bobadilla-German v. Bear Creek Orchards, Inc., Nos. 10-35205, 10-35268 (9th Cir., decided April 12, 2011). The owner recruited several hundred seasonal farm workers in Arizona for the month-long harvest in 2004-2006 and offered them optional on-site housing and meals. The company charged $5-$7 a day for housing and deducted that amount from workers’ paychecks, crediting it toward their minimum wage. “In many instances, if housing costs were not credited toward the workers’ minimum wage, their wage would have been below the lawful minimum wage.” The workers generally received their final paychecks on the day following their last day of work. A class of workers sued the company, alleging…
A federal court in California has determined that some putative class claims can proceed against a company that allegedly makes false and misleading statements about its guacamole and spicy bean dip products. Henderson v. Gruma Corp., No. 10-04173 (C.D. Cal., decided April 11, 2011). The plaintiffs’ first amended complaint alleged five causes of action for violations of the state’s unfair competition and false advertising laws and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. They claimed that the statements “0 g trans fat,” “with garden vegetables,” made in “the authentic tradition,” “0 g cholesterol,” and “all natural,” as to either or both products were false and misleading. The court first determined that the named plaintiffs, including a woman who recently brought and voluntarily dismissed similar claims against Hostess Brands, Inc., adequately alleged injury-in-fact to establish standing under Proposition 64. They alleged that they (i) “paid more for Mission Guacamole and Mission Bean Dip,…
A federal court in the District of Columbia has reportedly scheduled an April 26, 2011, hearing to determine whether attorneys representing Native American farmers and ranchers in the settlement of claims alleging discrimination against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should receive $60.8 million in fees. Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-03119 (D.D.C., preliminary settlement approval filed November 1, 2010). The sum represents 8 percent of the $760 million settlement; Department of Justice attorneys oppose the request and will file supporting papers in the next week. See The Blog of LegalTimes, April 5, 2011.
A company that sells a variety of seafood spreads has sued one of its packers, which allegedly added undeclared eggs to the company’s smoked salmon spread. Sau-Sea Foods, Inc. v. Lukas Foods, Inc., No. 11-00104 (D. Me., filed March 23, 2011). The plaintiff apparently learned about the problem after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspected the defendant’s facility and discovered that eggs had been used in the spread, thus “posing a potential health hazard.” A recall was immediately undertaken and widely reported in the media. Thereafter, FDA allegedly informed the plaintiff that its salmon spread “posed an acute, life-threatening hazard to health” and designated the recall as Class I. Alleging breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and negligent misrepresentation, Sau-Sea Foods seeks damages, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees. While the company alleges damages exceeding the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum, it…
