The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a conviction under the identity theft law requires a showing that those presenting false identification documents to employers knew they actually belonged to another real person. According to Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the unanimous Court, the law was intended to crack down on classic identity theft, for example, where a defendant uses another person’s information to get access to that person’s bank account. Prosecutors have been using the law, which calls for a mandatory prison term, against immigrant workers to get them to plead guilty to lesser immigration charges and accept prompt deportation. After the Court issued its ruling on May 4, 2009, the manager of a meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa, raided in May 2008, sought to withdraw her plea to a charge of aggravated identity theft for allegedly helping illegal immigrants get jobs at the plant with documents she knew…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
The pesticide-exposure claims of Nicaraguan banana-plantation workers were dismissed in two cases after a hearing that began April 21, 2009, in a state court in Los Angeles, California. Meija v. Dole Food Co., No. BC340049 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.); Rivera v. Dole Food Co., No. BC379820 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.). Additional details about the events leading to the court’s show-cause order and hearing appear in issue 297 of this Update. The court agreed with Dole Food Co. allegations that Nicaraguan lawyers, seeking to collect millions of dollars in damages from the company, recruited poor men to pose as plantation workers and claim that pesticide exposure caused their sterility. Dole introduced evidence showing a decade-long conspiracy to defraud U.S. companies and perpetuate a massive fraud on the court. Dole alleged that the attorneys intimidated witnesses and paid plaintiffs, showed them videos depicting plantation life, falsified sterility documents,…
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has turned aside a constitutional challenge to the statutory damages provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act in litigation against a food establishment that allegedly printed more than the last five digits of a customer’s credit card number on an electronically generated receipt. Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., Nos. 08-13510 & -13616 (11th Cir., decided April 9, 2009). The district court had granted the merchants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissed the claims with prejudice, after finding the statutory damages provision unconstitutionally vague and excessive. According to the appeals court, which addressed only the facial challenge to the law, by providing for a range of damages (from $100 to $1,000), the law does not deprive potential defendants of notice of the consequences of violations or result in arbitrarily assessed damages awards. The court remanded the litigation for further proceedings.
Finding that a trial court erred in admitting evidence and instructing the jury in a lawsuit involving claims that milk permeate sickened or killed calves that were fed the product as a source of dietary energy, protein and minerals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has returned a breach-of-warranties lawsuit to the lower court for a new trial. Millenkamp v. Davisco Foods Int’l, Inc., Nos. 07-35299 & -35318 (9th Cir., decided April 14, 2009). The defendant allegedly advised the owners of a cattle operation about the use of milk permeate as a food source for their calves and then sold the product to them. When their calves fell ill and some died, the plaintiffs learned that they had stored the product at an improper temperature, “which allowed lactose to ferment into a harmful lactic acid that caused the calves to fall prey to rumen acidosis.” The plaintiffs sued for breach…
A federal court in Pennsylvania has certified for immediate appeal its denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss in multidistrict litigation (MDL) alleging price-fixing by chocolate manufacturers. In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1935 (M.D. Pa., April 8, 2009). The defendants in these 87 consolidated lawsuits reportedly supply 75 percent of the chocolate candy consumed by Americans each year. The lawsuits allege that the companies conspired to raise prices in 2002, 2004 and 2007 by as much as 10 percent and rely on information generated by government investigations in the United States and Canada to bolster their conspiracy allegations. At least one company spokesperson has been quoted as saying, “You can’t just infer the existence of a price-fixing conspiracy from the fact that independent competitors in concentrated industries independently choose to raise their prices.” The question certified to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is whether the U.S.…
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the owners of a dairy are not required to first exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a constitutional challenge to Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act amendments. Hettinga v. U.S., No. 07-5403 (D.C. Cir., decided April 3, 2009). The amendments codified certain rule changes that the Secretary of Agriculture made to a program that regulates payments from milk handlers (processors and distributors) to milk producers (farmers) and is intended to protect producers from price fluctuations. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against enforcement of the secretary’s rule, and, while that proceeding was pending before a federal court in Texas, Congress amended the law. The plaintiffs then filed a complaint in a D.C. district court alleging that “the Amendments are unconstitutional as a bill of attainder and a denial of due process and equal protection because only the Hettingas are subject to them.” The district court…
A federal court in California has approved the settlement of class claims against Wendy’s International, Inc. involving its use of trans fats in fried food products. Yoo v. Wendy’s Int’l, Inc., No. 07-04515 (C.D. Cal., filed March 13, 2009). In its revised order and final judgment, the court overruled objections to the settlement, certified a nationwide settlement class and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The defendant was ordered to add $450,000 plus interest to the $1.8 million already in an escrow account to be divided equally among the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, American Dietetic Association, and American Heart Association. The court also ordered the defendant to ensure that its fried foods are cooked in oil containing a level of trans fat per serving that “can be represented as 0 grams of trans fat,” under Food and Drug Administration regulations. Wendy’s was further ordered to “pay for and subject its…
KFC U.S. Properties, Inc. has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the company that allegedly supplied defective food containers for the sale of Popcorn Chicken® to KFC customers; the containers apparently burst into flames when the product is reheated in a microwave. KFC U.S. Props., Inc. v. Paris Packaging, Inc., No. 09-00249 (W.D. Ky., filed April 3, 2009). According to the complaint, in February 2009, the defendant began using an ink with high carbon content for the graphics printed on the containers. After receiving customer complaints, KFC tested the containers and established that they “spontaneously combusted in a microwave within 13-20 seconds of reheating.” While no personal injuries have been alleged, the company is seeking damages in excess of $75,000 for breach of contract.
Food litigator William Marler has reportedly filed the first lawsuit against CW Sprouts for a recent Salmonella Saintpaul outbreak that purportedly sickened more than 100 in Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Stephen Beumler of Omaha apparently claims that he ate a sandwich with the company’s alfalfa sprouts and fell ill with the Salmonella strain traced to its products. Filed in a federal court in Nebraska, the lawsuit alleges product liability, negligence and violations of implied warranties of merchantability. Beumler reportedly seeks unspecified damages and attorney’s fees. See U.S. Food Law Report, April 3, 2009.
Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. settled claims that its insurance carrier unjustifiably refused to pay a significant portion of coverage owed to the food company arising out of a Listeria outbreak. The insurance company that agreed to provide coverage to Pilgrim’s insurer for any bad faith claims successfully mounted against it has been granted a declaratory judgment of no liability. Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., No. 07-958 (S.D.N.Y., decided March 31, 2009). Apparently, Pilgrim’s insurer agreed to the essential terms of a settlement proposed by a mediator before seeking Continental’s consent to settle. Under Texas law, settlement agreements are legally enforceable when the parties have agreed on the amount of consideration to be paid and the release of claims. While Pilgrim’s insurer made minor modifications to the agreement after notifying Continental, the court found that the mediator’s proposal was a binding and enforceable settlement agreement. Because Pilgrim’s insurer did…
