A California federal court has dismissed Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims against tomato-processing companies Los Gatos and Ingomar but will allow a bribery claim to proceed. Morning Star Packing Co. v. SK Foods, L.P., No. 9-0208 (E.D. Cal., order entered June 14, 2017). The Morning Star Packing Co. brought a RICO and bribery lawsuit against several competitors in 2009, alleging they conspired to fix prices, rig bids and avoid competing for the same customers. The court dismissed Morning Star's RICO claims against Ingomar and Los Gatos, finding that the company could not show that the competitors committed two injurious predicate acts. Similar claims against other competitors—SK Foods and Intramark—were not at issue in the ruling and will proceed to trial. The court refused to grant summary judgment on Morning Star’s bribery allegations against Ingomar. “Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Morning Star, and drawing all…
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
Gizmo Beverages has filed a lawsuit against its former chair alleging trademark infringement, cyberpiracy and conversion in response to his reported refusal to surrender company-related domain names and email accounts. Gizmo Beverages, Inc. v. Park, No. 17-2037 (C.D. Cal., filed June 14, 2017). Gizmo licenses the patents for a bottle-cap closure from another company, but after defendant Don Park allegedly failed to pay $400,000 for the licensing agreement, Gizmo removed him from management. Park registered the domain name "gizmoclosure.com," one letter different from Gizmo's "gizmoclosures.com," and has continued using the domain and associated email addresses after leaving the company. Gizmo seeks an injunction, transfer of all domain names, damages and attorney's fees. Issue 639
Sugarfina, maker of “luxury boutique” candies, has filed a trademark, copyright, patent and trade dress infringement suit against Sweet Pete’s alleging the competitor relied “heavily on several design elements of Sugarfina’s distinctive packaging and marketing” of Cuba Libre®, Peach Bellini®, Fruttini, Candy Cube, Candy Concierge and Candy Bento Box® products. Sugarfina v. Sweet Pete’s, No. 17-4456 (C.D. Cal., filed June 15, 2017). Sugarfina asserts that Sweet Pete’s copied the names, “size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics and sales techniques” of all six named product lines that Sugarfina packages in “museum-quality Lucite.” Sugarfina further argues that Sweet Pete’s was “a failing business prior to its radical transformation into a Sugarfina copycat.” The plaintiff seeks an injunction, treble damages, corrective advertising and attorney’s fees. Issue 639
Sanderson Farms, Inc.’s "all natural" chicken contains pesticides, antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals, according to a lawsuit filed by the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth and Organic Consumers Association. Organic Consumers Ass’n v. Sanderson Farms, No. 17-3592 (N.D. Cal., filed June 22, 2017). The plaintiffs allege that Sanderson’s chicken products are advertised as “100% natural,” but testing purportedly shows the products contain human and veterinary antibiotics, tranquilizers, growth hormones, steroids and pesticides. The complaint further alleges the presence of such drugs indicate that Sanderson’s raises its chickens in “unnatural, intensive-confinement, warehouse conditions” rather than “sipping lemonade and playing volleyball” as represented in the company’s online advertising. For alleged violations of California consumer protection laws, the plaintiffs seek accounting of profits, injunctive relief, corrective advertising and attorney’s fees. “Consumers should be alarmed that any food they eat contains steroids, recreational or anti-inflammatory drugs, or antibiotics prohibited for use in livestock—much…
Two livestock trade associations have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) alleging the agency’s 2016 repeal of marking and labeling regulations violates the Meat Inspection Act and the Tariff Act. Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of Am. v. U.S. Dept of Agric., No. 17-0223 (E.D. Wash., filed June 19, 2017). The Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF) and the Cattle Producers of Washington (CPW) assert that the Meat Inspection Act requires that meat from animals slaughtered outside the United States be “marked and labeled as required for imported articles” and the Tariff Act requires “conspicuous” marking “as to indicate to an ultimate purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of origin of the article." After a World Trade Organization ruling against a U.S. requirement to include country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on imports of livestock from Canada and Mexico, USDA…
A complaint against the maker of Tabatchnick soups that alleged the company’s products could not be called “natural” because they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has been voluntarily dismissed. Ramsaran v. Tabatchnick Fine Foods, Inc., No. 17-60794 (S.D. Fla., dismissed June 9, 2017). The plaintiff had argued that he relied on the company’s “all natural” representations when he bought the company’s prepackaged soups but later learned that they contain GMO soy, corn or canola. Additional details appear in Issue 632 of this Update. Issue 638
A plaintiff’s “cursory, formulaic recitation” of her purchase of Jelly Belly Candy Co.'s Sport Beans did not include enough factual allegations to establish a claim for relief, a California federal court has ruled. Gomez v. Jelly Belly Candy Co., No. 17-0575 (C.D. Cal., order entered June 8, 2017). The plaintiff had alleged the candy maker’s use of the term “evaporated cane juice” (ECJ) on the packaging misled her about the product's sugar content. Additional details on the complaint appear in Issue 629 of this Update. “Absent from the Complaint are any factual allegations concerning the circumstances of Gomez’s purchase of the product, how she intended to use the product, whether she in fact expected a sugar-free product, whether she thought ‘evaporated cane juice’ was juice as opposed to sugar, and whether she consumed the product,” the court said, granting Jelly Belly's motion to dismiss. However, the court ruled that Gomez…
Diageo has filed a trademark-infringement and dilution lawsuit against a competitor that allegedly mimicked Diageo’s Bulleit® bottle shape and labeling. Diageo N. Am. V. W.J. Deutsch & Sons, No. 17-4259 (S.D.N.Y., filed June 6, 2017). Diageo asserts that Bulleit® is sold in a “distinctive canteen-shaped bottle featuring embossed lettering” on the label, meant to “evoke the rugged look and feel of the American Frontier.” The complaint alleges that after W.J. Deutsch bought the Redemption whiskey product line, it redesigned the products to have a “clear canteen-shaped glass bottle,” an embossed brand name and a cork bottle cap with a black top. Claiming trademark and trade dress infringement and dilution, Diageo seeks injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 638
A consumer has filed a putative class action alleging Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. failed to take measures to prevent an April 2017 data breach in which hackers used malware to steal customer data from the magnetic stripes on payment cards. Baker v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 17-1134 (C.D. Cal., filed June 9, 2017). The complaint alleges that Chipotle failed to take “adequate and reasonable measures” to protect its data systems, which reportedly contain personally identifiable information in addition to payment card data. The plaintiff seeks class certification, equitable relief, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 638
A California federal court has decertified a class and granted partial summary judgment in an action alleging Kraft Foods Group falsely advertised its fat-free cheddar cheese as “natural.” Morales v. Kraft Foods Grp., No. 14-4387 (C.D. Cal, order entered June 9, 2017). Details on previous decisions in the case appear in Issues 570 and 625 of this Update. The court first granted summary judgment for Kraft as to restitution because the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence about their potential willingness to pay a premium based on the “natural cheese” label and therefore could not establish a basis for calculating restitution for the class. Turning to the issue of whether the consumers' belief that the cheese was "natural" was material to their purchasing decisions, the court determined that the plaintiffs' expert testimony created a triable issue of fact that could not be dismissed during the summary-judgment phase. Denying that portion…
