A federal magistrate in Florida has denied the plaintiffs’ request in multidistrict litigation challenging marketing claims that DHA Omega-3-fortified milk supports brain health to reconsider an earlier order excluding the testimony of their expert. In re Horizon Organic Milk Plus DHA Omega-3 Mktg. & Sales Practice Litig., MDL No. 2324 (S.D. Fla., order entered June 17, 2014). Details about the magistrate’s ruling excluding the plaintiffs’ expert appear in Issue 522 of this Update. The magistrate rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments for their failure to raise them when the motion to exclude the evidence was before him and determined that an intervening U.S. Food and Drug Administration final nutrient content rule on DHA is not new evidence and does not address the ground on which the magistrate struck the expert—his failure to show how the studies on which he relied could be extrapolated to cover the broad class of product purchasers. Issue…
Category Archives Litigation
A federal court in Georgia presiding over the criminal case filed against the former owner of the Peanut Corp. of America, implicated in a nationwide Salmonella outbreak in 2009, has denied Stewart Parnell’s motion to seal an exhibit that the government intends to introduce as Rule 404(b) evidence— that evidence pertaining to crimes, wrongs or other acts. United States v. Parnell, No. 13-12 (U.S. Dist. Ct., M.D. Ga., Albany Div., order entered June 13, 2014). Details about the criminal charges appear in Issue 472 of this Update. Parnell claimed that the evidence, an email, is “highly prejudicial” and would taint the jury pool. The government argued that “the exhibit is a judicial document subject to the common law right of access.” The court agreed with the government, because the document was discovery material that had been filed in connection with Parnell’s motion in limine, seeking to keep it from being…
A federal court in the District of Columbia has denied the request of the Black Farmers & Agriculturalists Association, Inc. to intervene in lawsuits brought by female and Hispanic farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) alleging gender and race bias in the administration of farm loan and disaster benefit programs. Love v. Vilsack, No. 00-2502 (D.D.C., decided June 13, 2014). Additional information about the gender discrimination claims appears in Issue 374 of this Update. The association was not a member of the settlement class established to resolve the claims of African-American farmers who failed to file claims for administrative adjudication before the deadline expired in Pigford v. Glickman (Pigford I). Those missing the deadline saw their claims revived under the 2008 Farm Bill and consolidated in litigation collectively known as Pigford II. Details about that litigation appear in Issue 395 of this Update. The association sought (i) a declaration…
After Kangadis Food Inc. filed for bankruptcy claiming that putative class litigation challenging its alleged misleading olive oil representations has cost the company, which does business as The Gourmet Factory, more than $1.4 million in attorney’s fees and could cost an additional $750,000 if the claims go to trial, the named plaintiffs filed class claims against its owners in a New York federal court. Ebin v.Kangadis Family Mgmt. LLC, No. 14-1324 (S.D.N.Y., filed June 11, 2014). The heavily redacted complaint alleges that these individuals were directly involved in trying to pass off pomace oil, processed from olive oil residue, as “100% Pure Olive Oil” under the Capatriti brand. Details about the litigation appear in Issue 515 of this Update. One of the individuals named as a defendant in the new lawsuit—identified as Aristidis Kangadis—apparently evaded deposition when the company’s counsel argued to the court that he “is a 73 year…
Four food, beverage and business trade organizations have filed a constitutionally based challenge to Vermont’s recently enacted law that would require food and beverage manufacturers to disclose on product labels that their products are “produced with genetic engineering” (GE), or “may be” or are “partially” so produced and to prohibit the use of terms such as “natural” in the labeling, signage and advertising of GE products. Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n v. Sorrell, No. 14-0117 (D. Vt., filed June 12, 2014). According to the complaint, it will be difficult or impossible to comply with the law’s July 1, 2016, effective date, because members must “revise hundreds of thousands of product packages,” “establish Vermont-only distribution channels” or “revise the labels for all of their products, no matter where they might be sold in the United States.” The plaintiffs claim that the law’s proscriptions “are beyond Vermont’s power to enact” by “compelling manufacturers to…
A federal court in California has denied the motion to dismiss filed by The Hain Celestial Group in four consolidated putative class actions alleging that the company deceives consumers by labeling and promoting 10 of its Celestial Seasonings® teas as “100% Natural” when they contain chemical insecticides, fungicides and herbicides. Von Slomski v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 13-1757 (C.D. Cal., order entered June 10, 2014). So ruling, the court disagreed that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim or lacked standing, or that the litigation should be dismissed under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. The company challenged the Eurofins test on which the plaintiffs rely to support their claim that the teas contain “significant levels” of man-made, chemical pesticides. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs failed to provide details about the testing, and the study “was published by ‘an admittedly biased short-seller that admits that it issued the report…
According to a news source, the Irwindale City Council has decided to drop its public-nuisance declaration and lawsuit against Huy Fong Foods, the California-based company that makes the popular Sriracha hot sauce. Information about the dispute appears in Issue 520 of this Update. The company had asked for more time to address the odors emitted from its facility; residents had complained about burning throats and eyes since the hot sauce maker moved its main operation to Irwindale in 2013. Council’s vote was reportedly taken behind closed doors after a meeting with company CEO David Tran and representatives from the governor’s Business and Economic Development Office. Tran has indicated that better filters have been installed and should block fumes during the chili-grinding season that begins in August. See AP, May 29, 2014. Issue 525
A wheelchair-bound plaintiff has reportedly filed a putative class action in California state court against the largest franchisee of TGI Friday’s, Briad Restaurant Group LLC, for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Hicks v. Briad Restaurants Grp. LLC, No. BC546927 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed May 28, 2014). Plaintiff, Chris Hicks, alleges that Briad Restaurant violated the ADA by having deficient bathroom facilities and insufficient signage for disabled parking spaces in at least 20 of its locations, and he further asserts that the company had received notice of the issues, was given an opportunity to fix them and failed to do so. As a result, Hicks argues that Briad Restaurant has violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act and seeks statutory relief and injunctive damages. See Law360, May 29, 2014 Issue 525
A California court has approved the settlement of claims that alcohol beverage makers allegedly sold their products without providing warnings required under the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Bonilla v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, No. BC537188 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., judgment entered May 30, 2014). Additional details about the claims appear in issue 515 of this Update. Under the agreement, the companies, denying that the signage they already provided to retailers failed to comply with Prop. 65, will (i) obtain a list of all current licensees from the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; (ii) mail or email to every licensee “Proposition 65 Signage”; (iii) mail or email a letter providing contact information for ordering additional signage free of charge, informing licensees of their posting obligations and describing regulatory requirements pertaining to placement; and (iv) repeat these actions every five years. They also…
A California state trial court has approved the settlement agreement in a class action against Innovative Dining Group LLC (IDG), owner of the Boa Steakhouse and Sushi Roku chains, alleging that the restaurants falsely advertised their menu as containing Kobe beef. Hall v. Innovative Dining Grp. LLC, No. BC493144 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., motion granted May 30, 2014). Plaintiffs claimed that using the term “Kobe beef” implies that the beef came from Wagyu cattle raised and slaughtered in the Kobe region of Japan, but IDG’s restaurants advertised Kobe beef on their menus even while the U.S. Department of Agriculture banned beef imports from that region from May 2010 to August 2012. While admitting no wrongdoing, IDG has agreed to issue $20 gift certificates to customers who can prove that they purchased a Kobe beef menu item, $10 gift certificates to any class member who submits a claim, and…
