A California federal court has granted Duke University’s motion to dismiss in a lawsuit filed by John Wayne Enterprises seeking a declaratory judgment that its registration and use of Duke trademarks are not likely to cause consumer confusion and do not violate or dilute the school’s trademarks. John Wayne Enterprises, LLC v. Duke Univ., No. 14-1020 (C.D. Cal., order entered September 30, 2014). The case was dismissed on procedural grounds after the court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the North Carolina-based university. Additional information about the lawsuit appears in Issue 530 of this Update. Issue 539
Category Archives U.S. Circuit Courts
A Michigan federal court has denied The International Group Inc.’s (IGI’s) motion for summary judgment in a case alleging that the waxmaker and FPC Flexible Packaging Corp. provided Kellogg with non-merchantable cereal bags. Kellogg Co. v. FPC Flexible Packaging Corp., No. 11-272 (W.D. Mich., order entered September 30, 2014). IGI supplied wax to FPC, which used it to construct cereal bags sold to Kellogg. The bags were then used as liners in boxes of Corn Pops, Froot Loops, Apple Jacks, and Honey Smacks, and after consumers complained of nausea and diarrhea, Kellogg destroyed its inventory of the cereals and issued vouchers to consumers who had already purchased boxes. After ruling that Canadian law applied, the court assessed the contract between FPC and IGI, determining when it began, what terms were implicit and what warranties existed as a result. “Questions of fact exist as to whether the wax was merchantable,” the…
A New York federal court has approved a $910,000 settlement in a class action contending that Pret A Manger failed to pay employees for the time it took them to put on uniforms or time spent waiting for the changing room. Trinidad v. Pret A Manger (USA) Ltd., No. 12-6094 (S.D.N.Y., order entered September 19, 2014). Under the settlement agreement, Pret will pay $910,000 to the class to be distributed on a sliding scale, with $5 to class members employed for less than a week, and about $4.50 per week to class members who worked there longer. Class counsel sought 33 percent of the settlement fund for attorney’s fees, but the court found fault with some of counsel’s billing practices. It noted that approximately 70 percent of the billed hours were worked by a partner at the rate of $550 per hour, but “a close review of the tasks that [the…
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has found that a lower court did not abuse its discretion in approving a $3 million settlement offer in a nationwide class action alleging that Ferrero USA falsely advertised Nutella hazelnut spread as nutritious for children. In re Nutella Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 12-3456 (3rd Cir., order entered September 29, 2014). Several class members had objected to the size of the attorney’s fees award and the deduction of the award from the settlement fund. More details about the settlement appear in Issue 444 and Issue 530 of this Update. Issue 539
A California federal court has certified a statewide liability class in a lawsuit accusing Jamba Juice of labeling its home smoothie kits as “all natural” despite containing five synthetic ingredients—ascorbic acid, xanthan gum, steviol glycosides, modified corn starch, and gelatin—but it refused to certify the class for damages. Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co., No. 13-2998 (N.D. Cal., order entered September 18, 2014). The court dismissed Jamba Juice’s argument that the class was unascertainable because no purchase records existed for the kits, finding that such an approach would “have significant negative ramifications for the ability to obtain redress for consumer injuries.” The court agreed, however, with Jamba Juice’s proposition that the plaintiffs could not provide a plausible class-wide damages model, because they did not show “any evidence, expert reports, or even detailed explanation about how those damages models can be fairly determined or at least estimated.” See Bloomberg BNA, September 19, 2014.…
A New York bankruptcy court and federal court have issued orders certifying classes in litigation against Kangadis Food, Inc. d/b/a The Gourmet Factory and related entities, alleging that the company falsely labeled its products as “100% Pure Olive Oil” when they actually contain the industrially processed substance “olive-pomace oil,” “olive-residue oil” or “Pomace.” In re Kangadis Food Inc., No. 14-72649 (U.S. Bankr. Ct., E.D.N.Y., order entered September 19, 2014); Ebin v. Kangadis Family Mgmt. LLC, No. 14-1324 (S.D.N.Y., order entered September 18, 2014). Additional information about the federal court proceeding appears in Issue 507 of this Update. While the federal court dismissed the direct claims against the company’s owners, it found that the claims could proceed against them “under the veil piercing and alter ego theories.” The court further rejected the defendants’ “ascertainability” challenge to class certification, noting that “whether or not an individual purchased during the class period a tin…
A federal court in Maryland has allowed the personal representative of the estate of a man who died in 2011 during a nationwide Listeria outbreak linked to a Colorado cantaloupe farm to sue the company responsible for auditing the cantaloupe producer’s processing facilities, finding that it owed him a duty of care. Wells Lloyd v. Frontera Produce, Ltd., No. 13-2232 (D. Md., order entered September 24, 2014). An Oklahoma court refused to allow claims against the auditor in December 2013, finding that the plaintiff, who was sickened during the Listeria outbreak, could not show that the auditor owed him a duty under Oklahoma law. Details about that ruling appear in Issue 509 of this Update. In contrast, the Maryland court found that the food safety auditor owed a duty to the decedent, because its allegedly negligent audit of the facility—finding that it complied with applicable standards of care for food processing—met…
A California federal court has approved a settlement in a case accusing Guayaki Sustainable Rainforest Products Inc. of misleading its customers by listing “organic evaporated cane juice” (ECJ) as an ingredient of its yerba mate products. Cowan v. Guayaki Sustainable Rainforest Prods. Inc., No. 14-1248 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal., order entered September 16, 2014). The terms of the settlement agreement are confidential. The plaintiff’s suit was part of a deluge of putative class actions alleging product mislabeling because the companies included ECJ on their ingredient lists rather than, plaintiffs have argued, the more common and accepted term for the substance, sugar. Many of these cases have been dismissed without prejudice or stayed while courts and parties await promised guidance on the issue from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Additional information on recent cases appears in Issues 534, 532 and 530 of this Update. Issue 538
Back Yard Burgers of Nebraska, Inc. has agreed to settle claims that it violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) by allegedly using the last five digits of customer credit-card numbers on its older receipts, instead of the last four digits. Keith v. Back Yard Burgers of Neb., Inc., No. 11-0135 (D. Neb., order preliminarily approving class settlement entered September 15, 2014). The company will pay $2,792,400 into a settlement fund, will provide coupons for a free soft drink with the purchase of an entrée to class members who submit valid claims, will not contest class counsel fees of up to 40 percent of the consent judgment—or $1,116,960—will quitclaim assign to the plaintiff any claim it may have against Data Cash Register (DCR) related to the class action and cooperate in pursuing collection of a consent judgment against DCR, and will comply with FACTA going forward. The class…
Nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Food & Water Watch, Inc. and two of its members have filed an action against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its Food Safety and Inspection Service seeking to enjoin their new National Poultry Inspection System (NPIS) rules. Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, No. 14-1547 (D.D.C., filed September 11, 2014). Details about the rules, which take effect October 20, 2014, appear in Issue 532 of this Update. The plaintiffs allege that the rules violate the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They interpret the PPIA as requiring “that federal inspectors critically appraise all chicken and turkey carcasses and viscera,” and set forth how increased line speeds and rules giving poultry employees, without training or certification, the authority to inspect and remove adulterated birds or parts from processing lines before inspectors see them violate this requirement. Without actual inspection of every bird,…
