Alleging that Perdue Farms Inc. misleads consumers by labeling its chicken products as “Humanely Raised,” a member of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has reportedly filed a putative class action against the company in a New Jersey court. The suit apparently claims that the company’s chickens are processed under National Chicken Council guidelines that allow “numerous inhumane practices, including painful handling and shackling of live birds . . . and egregiously inhumane slaughter practices.” The plaintiff seeks to represent all consumers who buy the company’s chicken products relying on the “alleged deceptive and misleading humane claim.” Compensatory damages and injunction relief are also sought. According to an HSUS spokesperson, “Rather than implementing humane reforms, Perdue has simply slapped ‘humanely raised’ stickers on its factory farmed products, hoping consumers won’t know the difference.” Perdue reportedly responded to the complaint by stating, “The Humane Society of the United States…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
A California court has reportedly ordered Dole Food Co. to pay about $200,000 in legal fees and costs to Swedish filmmakers whom the company sued for defamation, alleging that their documentary about the lawyer who sued Dole on behalf of Nicaraguan banana plantation workers exposed to the pesticide DBCP implied that the company caused their deaths. Dole Food Co. v. Gertten, No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., decided November 17, 2010). The filmmakers filed a motion to strike the lawsuit after it was filed in July 2009 on the ground that it constituted a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” or SLAPP, which is prohibited by state law. Although Dole apparently dismissed its lawsuit voluntarily thereafter, “[t]he potential distributors were concerned because Dole had only dismissed without prejudice. They had the right to re-file the action,” according to the filmmakers’ counsel. While the film has been distributed in 15…
According to a news source, a district court in the District of Columbia has denied a request seeking an order that the Justice Department submit a proposal for settling claims of loan program discrimination filed by female farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Instead, the court apparently urged the lawyers representing the litigants to work together to reach an agreement and to report back during a January 14, 2011, status hearing. Unlike recent cases addressing charges that USDA discriminated against African-American (Pigford I and Pigford II) and Native American (Keepseagle v. Vilsack) farmers, Love v. Vilsack reportedly involves putative class claims that have not been certified. Counsel for the women farmers and those representing Hispanic farmers with similar claims (Garcia v. Vilsack) contend that the government’s settlement proposals thus far pale in comparison to the sums agreed to in Pigford ($2.25 billion) and Keepseagle ($680 million). See National Journal Daily, December…
A federal court in Ohio has determined that, for the most part, an “all-risk” insurance policy excludes from coverage the losses sustained by a meat processor whose products were contaminated with Listeria during processing. HoneyBaked Foods, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., No. 08-01686 (N.D. Ohio, W. Div., decided December 2, 2010). Still, the court ordered the parties to prepare a question for certification to the Ohio Supreme Court as to whether, “notwithstanding the failure of the policy to cover the plaintiff’s loss, such loss might be covered” under a reasonable-expectations theory. According to the court, the meat processor was required to destroy about 1 million pounds of fully cooked ham and turkey products after it was discovered that the Listeria found in product samples matched sludge in a hollow roller that was part of the processing plant’s conveyor system. The company sought coverage for the disposed food products and additional losses…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reportedly issued a temporary stay of a district court order mandating the destruction of 256 acres of genetically engineered (GE) sugar beet seedlings that were, according to the lower court, planted illegally in September 2010. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 10-04038 (N.D. Cal., decided November 30, 2010). Press sources indicate that the Ninth Circuit’s postponement is scheduled to expire December 23, when the court will either allow the crop destruction to proceed or extend the stay until it can thoroughly review an appeal from the lower court order granting the plaintiffs’ motion to remedy violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by pulling the seedlings out of the ground. The seedlings were being grown to produce seed for future Roundup Ready® sugar beet crops, which are resistant to glyphosate, an ingredient in a popular herbicide. GE sugar beet critics contend…
Two California businessmen have reportedly filed a complaint in small claims court against a Marin County restaurateur, alleging that they were sprayed with hot garlic butter from an exploding snail. Chadwick St.-O’Harra, a former law student, and Steve Righetti were apparently celebrating Righetti’s birthday at a seafood restaurant, when the escargot purportedly exploded, dousing their faces and polo shirts. The men reportedly claim that the incident caused both “humiliation” and “a sense of genuine outrage” and that the restaurateur allegedly responded with “indifference” and “friggin’ rudeness.” The two were dining on a filet-and-lobster combo and a seafood medley and did not reportedly seek immediate medical treatment, choosing instead to finish their meals. According to the restaurant owner, the incident never happened and escargot does not explode. Still, some in the industry have characterized “escargot explosion” as a “rare but periodic phenomenon” that can be attributed to air bubbles trapped inside…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., in federal court, alleging that the company has violated consumer protection laws in labeling and promoting its “Snapple® Acai Mixed Berry Red Tea Immunity” product because “no known clinical study . . . adequately supports Snapple’s claims.” Meaunrit v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, LLC, No. 10-5153 (N.D. Cal., filed November 12, 2010). Seeking to certify a class of all product purchasers, the named plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as breach of express warranty. She asks for restitution, disgorgement, damages, and attorney’s fees and costs in excess of $5 million. Plaintiff Julia Meaunrit and her counsel, Florida-licensed Howard Rubinstein, previously filed an unsuccessful class-action lawsuit in California against a food company alleging inadequate cooking instructions for its frozen pot pies. Details about that…
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has filed a motion to dismiss a complaint charging the agency with exceeding its authority in requiring Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pre-approval for health-related claims on food products, violating advertisers’ constitutional rights by requiring compliance with these standards and failing to comply with notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures in establishing the standards. POM Wonderful LLC v. FTC, No. 10-1539 (D.D.C., motion filed November 16, 2010). Additional information about POM Wonderful’s complaint appears in Issue 364 of this Update. FTC contends that the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the matter because the complaint is moot, the company lacks standing, the company is attempting to preclude an enforcement action, and the complaint does not challenge final agency action. Specifically, FTC claims (i) the agency merely created a possible remedy of FDA pre-approval in consent agreements with food producers making health-related claims and not an enforceable rule; (ii) it…
A federal court in California, presiding over two putative class actions alleging that I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter!®, Country Crock® and other cholesterol-free margarines were falsely advertised as nutritious, has denied a joint motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement. Red v. Unilever PLC, No. 10-00387 (N.D. Cal., order filed November 16, 2010). The court was concerned about “the waiver of certain damages claims and need for opt-out in a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) injunctive class where the proposed class received no monetary relief.” Scheduling a settlement hearing for the parties with a special master on or before December 13, 2010, the court allowed the parties to continue negotiating and expanded the special master’s authority “to negotiate a revised settlement to address the Court’s concerns.” The cases, filed in 2009, involve claims that butter-substitute makers have violated consumer protection laws by promoting their products as “healthy”…
A coalition of major farm, food and fuel industry trade groups has reportedly filed a lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) decision to allow gasoline with up to 15 percent ethanol (E15) to be sold for vehicles made in the 2007 model year or later. The coalition, which includes the American Petroleum Institute, apparently contends that tests to determine whether the blend will damage these cars, light-duty trucks and SUVs have not been completed. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA may not approve a new fuel additive unless it “will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system.” The industry interests also claim that EPA lacks the authority to grant a “partial waiver” to allow the fuel to be used in only some vehicles, saying the agency should not approve the fuel unless it is…
