The European Court of Justice has refused to void a lower court’s decision against Dole Foods confirming an $83 million fine shared with other companies resulting from a finding of collusion to fix the prices of bananas sold in several European countries. Dole Food & Dole Germany v. Commission, No. C-286/13 P (E.C.J., order entered March 19, 2015). Dole sought to annul or reduce its fine, arguing the commission had not proven that the weekly communications between banana-producing companies just before prices were set were intended to fix prices. The company also argued that the lower court had lumped price quotes for green bananas and yellow bananas when the price-quoting schemes are separate. The prices of some bananas were set weeks before they were sold, while other companies sold their inventories at different times, Dole argued; as a result, the bananas from different companies were not in direct competition. The…
Category Archives Litigation
Food Network’s “Barefoot Contessa” and her company have reportedly reached a settlement agreement with Aqua Star (USA) Co. less than one month after the celebrity chef filed a complaint alleging trademark infringement for frozen dinners bearing the phrase “Contessa Chef Inspired.” Barefoot Contessa Pantry LLC v. Aqua Star (USA) Co., No. 15-1092 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D.N.Y., settlement reached March 12, 2015). Ina Garten and her company, Barefoot Contessa, alleged that Aqua Star and its subsidiary, OFI Imports, manufactured and sold frozen dinners too similar to products made by a former licensee of Garten’s name and likeness. Aqua Star has reportedly agreed to stop selling products with the Barefoot Contessa mark, remove and destroy the products from shelves by early May, and pay an undisclosed amount of money. Additional information about the complaint appears in Issue 556 of this Update. See SeafoodSource.com, March 13, 2015. Issue 559
Two plaintiffs who alleged that Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc. conceals the unsafe nature of its Redline® Xtreme energy drink have settled with the company for the approximate purchase price of a single product plus interest. Mirabella v. Vital Pharm., Inc., No. 12-62086 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Fla., joint stipulation and notice of settlement filed March 16, 2015). According to a notice filed with the court, the company has agreed to pay each plaintiff the cost of one drink—$2.50 to one, $2.99 to the other—along with accrued interest within 10 days of receiving general releases from the plaintiffs. A Florida federal court refused to certify the plaintiffs’ proposed class on February 27, 2015. Additional details about that decision appear in Issue 557 of this Update. Issue 559
A California federal court has approved the proposed settlement in a class action alleging that Jamba Juice® mislabels its smoothie kits as “all natural” despite containing synthetic ingredients gelatin, xanthan gum, ascorbic acid, steviol glycosides, and modified corn starch. Lilly v. Jamba Juice Co., No. 13-2998 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal., settlement approved March 18, 2015). The December 2014 proposed settlement was reached three months after the court certified the class for liability but not for damages. Under the agreement, Jamba Juice® will remove “all natural” on the product packaging and the company website by March 31, 2015. Additional information about the settlement appears in Issue 547 of this Update. Issue 559
An Illinois federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging that Kind misleadingly labeled its Vanilla Blueberry Clusters as having “no refined sugars” despite containing evaporated cane juice (ECJ) and molasses. Ibarrola v. Kind, LLC, No. 12-50377 (N.D. Ill., order entered March 12, 2015). The plaintiff had alleged that ECJ and molasses result from refining sugar cane—albeit less refining than what is required to produce table sugar—and as a result, the label’s claim of “no refined sugar” was fraudulent, breached an express warranty and violated the state’s consumer-protection law. The court found the plaintiff’s claim that she read the entire package, including the ingredients list, before purchasing the product contradicted her claim that she did not understand that the product contained partially refined sugars, noting that courts “have dismissed complaints premised on such logical inconsistencies.” The court also compared what she claimed to believe to what a reasonable consumer would believe upon…
A California appeals court has affirmed a lower court’s ruling against plaintiff Environmental Law Foundation (ELF), which alleged that the products of Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp. and other food manufacturers, distributors and retailers contained sufficient amounts of lead to trigger warnings required under the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Envtl. Law Found. v. Beech-Nut Nutrition Corp., No. A139821 (Cal. Ct. App., 1st App. D., Div. 1, order entered March 17, 2015). ELF argued that several products, including foods predominantly intended for babies and toddlers, contained more than the state’s safe-harbor level of 0.5 micrograms per day. On appeal, ELF challenged the trial court’s decision to allow Beech-Nut’s experts to average lead test results over multiple lots rather than evaluating each individually because the single highest result may have met the minimum threshold for Prop. 65 labeling. The court dismissed the challenge, finding that averaging…
Whole Oats Enterprises, a partnership of musicians Daryl Hall and John Oates, has filed a lawsuit against Early Bird Foods & Co. alleging that the name of the company’s “Haulin’ Oats” granola product infringes on their trademarks. Whole Oats Enters. v. Early Bird Foods & Co., No. 15-1124 (E.D.N.Y., filed March 4, 2015). The musicians own the registered trademark in “Daryl Hall and John Oates” and assert common law trademark rights to “Hall & Oates,” which the group often calls itself. Early Bird’s “Haulin’ Oats,” a granola product containing rolled oats and maple syrup, is an “obvious” “phonetic play” on the band name, the complaint alleges. The complaint also details a 2014 attempt at the use of “Haulin’ Oats” by a Tennessee company selling oatmeal and food-delivery services. The company assigned its rights to “Haulin’ Oats” to Whole Oats, which then licensed the name back to the company in exchange for royalties.…
The estate of Logan Stiner, an Ohio teenager who died in May 2014 after ingesting pure caffeine powder purchased from Amazon, has filed a lawsuit against the online retailer and the companies that manufacture and market the powder. Stiner v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 15CV185837 (C.P. Lorain Cty., filed March 6, 2015). According to the complaint, “pure caffeine is a drug” under Ohio law, but the powder manufacturers have “successfully avoided meaningful regulation of [the] product by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by classifying their product as a ‘dietary supplement,’” which leaves them “responsible for determining that pure caffeine powder is safe.” The companies “failed to alert users of the known risks and side effects of ingesting caffeine powder, including the risk of cardiac arrhythmia and cardiac arrest,” the reaction that killed Stiner, the complaint says. The estate also alleges that the companies did not conduct adequate testing of…
A Colorado state court has approved the settlements of several wrongful death and personal injury suits against 14 defendants—including Jensen Farms—stemming from the sale of cantaloupe tainted with Listeria that killed 33 people in 2011. Exley v. Jensen Farms, No. 2011-1891 (Colo. D.C., Arapahoe Cty., order entered March 5, 2015). The court dismissed 24 of 26 cases pursuant to the settlement agreement reached in February 2015, remanded one case to a Texas court and left the dismissal of the last case to a probate court because it regards a minor. The settlement terms are confidential, but according to plaintiffs’ attorney Bill Marler, the medical expenses total more than $12 million. Details about the criminal charges against the brothers who own Jensen Farms appear in Issue 500 of this Update. See Minneapolis Star Tribune, March 11, 2015. Issue 558
A California appeals court has rejected a Napa restaurant’s attempt to circumvent the state’s foie gras ban by describing it as a gift for ordering another dish then arguing that a resulting suit brought by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) seeking an injunction was merely a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) in violation of the state anti-SLAPP statute. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. LT Napa Partners LLC, No. A139615 (Cal. Ct. App., order entered March 5, 2015). Additional information on the foie gras ban, which a California federal court struck down in January 2015, appears in Issue 550 of this Update. Kenneth Frank, the head chef at Napa’s La Toque restaurant, was a vocal opponent of California’s foie gras ban; he testified at state senate hearings, participated in public debates and authored a newspaper opinion piece on the subject. On three occasions, ALDF sent an investigator to La Toque…
