Skinnygirl Cocktails, LLC and a consumer have filed a joint stipulation of dismissal in a lawsuit alleging that the company and its reality-TV star founder, Bethenny Frankel, mislabeled its Margarita cocktail as “natural” despite containing the preservative sodium benzoate. Langendorf v. Skinnygirl Cocktails, LLC, No. 11-7060 (N.D. Ill., joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed May 5, 2015). The joint stipulation comes after the court refused to certify the class in October 2014, finding that the plaintiff failed to show that the class was ascertainable and that the plaintiff was not a suitable representative for the class due to a personal relationship with her counsel. The stipulation does not indicate whether the parties reached a settlement. Additional information about the denial of class certification appears in Issue 544 of this Update. Issue 564
Category Archives Litigation
A New York federal court has reportedly approved an agreement between Red Bull GmbH and a class of consumers, settling allegations that Red Bull falsely advertised its product as providing more benefit than coffee provides. Careathers v. Red Bull N. Am. Inc., No. 13-0369 (S.D.N.Y., order entered May 1, 2015); Wolf v. Red Bull GmbH, No. 13-8008 (S.D.N.Y., order entered May 1, 2015). The agreement allots $13 million to the 2 million claimants, of whom 60 percent will each receive $4.23 and 40 percent will each receive a four-pack of Red Bull energy drinks. The court cut the fees for plaintiffs’ counsel down to about $3.4 million, or about $1.4 million less than they requested; the attorney’s fees and class award were not linked, and the court apparently indicated that it would have preferred to lower the attorney’s fees amount to increase the total consumer amount to accommodate the large…
A Florida federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Beam Suntory Inc. and Maker’s Mark Distillery falsely label their Maker’s Mark® bourbon as “handmade” because they manufacture the product using a mechanized process. Salters v. Beam Suntory, Inc., No. 14-659 (N.D. Fla., order entered May 1, 2015). The plaintiffs “have been unable to articulate a consistent, plausible explanation of what they understood ‘handmade’ to mean in this context. This is understandable; nobody could believe a bourbon marketed this widely at this volume is made entirely or predominantly by hand,” the court said. The court first found that the process of making Maker’s Mark® bourbon is handmade in the original sense of the word because it is “distinguished from the work of nature,” according to the Oxford English Dictionary definition. “In that sense all bourbon is handmade; bourbon, unlike coffee or orange juice, cannot be grown in the wild.” The court…
In a May 5, 2015, Law360 analysis, Shook, Hardy & Bacon Partner Andy Carpenter chronicles a “meta” class action against Riceland Foods, Inc., a party to multidistrict litigation (MDL) stemming from the use of genetically modified organism (GMO) rice, which several thousand rice farmers alleged had tainted the U.S. rice supply. After Riceland obtained a verdict in a cross-claim against Bayer and settled its portion of the MDL, class-action counsel and plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the company to obtain compensation for their work, from which they argued Riceland benefited when it received a judgment from Bayer. Carpenter details the reasoning of the district court and the later affirmation from the Eighth Circuit, discussing issues of jurisdiction and choice of law. Issue 564
In a May 8, 2015, Law360 article titled “For High Court, 2 Scoops of Raisins In This Case,” Shook, Hardy & Bacon Partner Ann Peper Havelka and Associate Jara Settles provide an overview of the arguments in a U.S. Supreme Court case challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s program requiring raisin farmers to set aside a portion of their yield to give to the federal government to aid in stabilizing the market. They document the questions and responses during oral argument, noting the issues that interested the justices, including Justice Stephen Breyer’s point that compensation for the alleged taking may have been paid in the form of increased raisin prices and Justice Samuel Alito’s concern over whether a similar program could be instituted for other products, such as cell phones or cars. “Despite the government’s defense of a decades-old price stabilization plan, the court’s questioning during oral argument leaned toward…
Fifth Generation, Inc., maker of Tito’s® Handmade Vodka, has filed an opposition to a motion to consolidate eight proposed class actions alleging the vodka is mislabeled as “handmade” because it is manufactured with an automated process. In re Tito’s Handmade Vodka Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2634 (J.P.M.L., motion filed April 28, 2015). The company argues that the eight lawsuits are in seven jurisdictions and include claims based on the laws of several different states. Further, several of its motions to dismiss are already fully briefed, Fifth Generation says. If the panel determines that multi-district litigation (MDL) is appropriate, the company argues that the Western District of Texas or the Northern District of Florida would be venues better suited for the litigation than the proposed Southern District of California because the average duration of cases in California is longer than in the former two jurisdictions. Issue 563
Texas has settled a trademark dispute with Alamo Beer Co. and Old 300 Brewing after the state intervened in Alamo Beer’s lawsuit alleging Old 300 infringed its trademarked Alamo silhouette. Alamo Beer Co. v. Old 300 Brewing, LLC, No. 14-285 (W.D. Tex., consent order entered April 28, 2015). According to court documents, the settlement establishes that Texas owns the premises of the Alamo in downtown San Antonio and “[a]s the owner, the State also owns the image of the Alamo and the right to commercialize that image to whatever extent the State, as owner, decides to do so. Such commercialization includes the right to use or license the use of the image on product labels.” The consent order further lists the state’s federally registered trademarks related to the Alamo, which it uses to sell products at the landmark’s gift shop. Under the final judgment, Alamo Beer and Old 300 are permanently…
A California federal court has denied Boulder Brands, Inc.’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that the company misrepresents the cholesterol-blocking effect of the plant sterols in its Smart Balance® butter products because the amount of plant sterols is “not enough to generate a ‘clinically meaningful cholesterol blocking effect.’” Mitchell v. Boulder Brands, Inc., No. 12-1862 (S.D. Cal., order entered April 16, 2015). The court declined to reconsider its earlier decision that “the products’ labels could plausibly be read as implying a ‘clinically meaningful cholesterol blocking benefit’ and that this implied representation is ‘specific, measurable, and falsifiable.’” The expert report upon which the court has based its decision stated that a minimum of 800 milligrams of plant sterols—eight times the content in one serving of the Smart Balance® product—would be the minimum to meaningfully block cholesterol. Issue 563
A Vermont federal court has denied a preliminary injunction that would have prevented from taking effect the nation’s first state law requiring the labeling of food products manufactured with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell, No. 14-0117 (D. Vt., order entered April 27, 2015). Several food industry groups challenged the statute’s provisions requiring GMO labeling and preventing foods with GMO ingredients from bearing a “natural” label. The court first examined the industry groups’ claim that the statute violates the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It agreed with the groups’ argument that the statute seems to prohibit the use of “natural” in signage and advertising “regardless of where or how those activities take place,” and accordingly refused to dismiss Vermont’s motion to dismiss that aspect of the Commerce Clause claim. The rest of the Commerce Clause claims, based on the argument that the statute would require…
A California federal court has granted in part and dismissed in part a motion to dismiss a putative consumer class action against The Hain Celestial Group alleging that the company mislabels its Sunflower Dream Drink as “all natural” despite containing artificial or synthetic ingredients, including xanthan gum and folic acid. Anderson v. The Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., No. 14-3895 (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div., order entered April 8, 2015). Hain challenged the plaintiff’s standing to sue for the alleged mislabeling of “substantially similar” products she did not personally purchase as well as standing for injunctive relief because she did not indicate that she would purchase Sunflower Dream Drink again. The court disagreed with the first argument, finding that the products the plaintiff did not purchase are substantially similar because they feature the same “all natural” representation and contain artificial, synthetic or extensively processed ingredients. Discussing the argument against standing for an…
