A New Jersey resident has filed a putative nationwide class action against the Campbell Soup Co. and American Heart Association (AHA) claiming that the “Heart-Check Mark” which AHA allows Campbell to place on more than 30 varieties of its canned soups in exchange for a fee misleads consumers into believing that these products meet AHA’s heart-healthy nutritional guidelines when a single serving actually contains nearly three times the amount of sodium permitted under those guidelines. O’Shea v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 13-4887 (D.N.J., filed August 13, 2013). According to the plaintiff, “Properly characterized, the real meaning of the AHA’s Heart-Check Mark certification is, ‘Unhealthy, but maybe not as bad for you as other products.’” Also characterizing the certification program as a “scheme,” the plaintiff alleges, “By the AHA selling, and Campbell’s buying, the right to affix the AHA’s seal of approval to its products, they falsely represent to the public…
Category Archives Litigation
A federal court in Georgia has issued an order continuing the criminal trial against former Peanut Corp. of America officials and employees, including owner Stewart Parnell, until February 10, 2014. United States v. Parnell, No. 12-12 (M.D. Ga., order entered August 15, 2013). The company was the source of a nationwide Salmonella outbreak in 2009, and the 76-count indictment charges four individuals with conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, obstruction of justice and other counts related to the distribution of adulterated and misbranded food. Details about the indictment appear in Issue 472 of this Update.
A federal court in California has denied a motion to dismiss in a contract dispute between the supplier of molasses allegedly contaminated with lead and the company that used the ingredient to make licorice subject to a nationwide recall. Am. Licorice Co. v. Total Sweeteners, Inc., No. 13-1929 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 13, 2013). Relying on a sales contract it had prepared, the molasses supplier contended that the plaintiff had failed to comply with its notice provisions and therefore was precluded from seeking relief for its alleged breach. Relying on a purchase order with different terms it had prepared and issued before the first shipment under the contract, the plaintiff candy maker argued that the shipments were subject to its terms. The court was unwilling to determine as a matter of law whether the purchase order altered the terms and conditions of the contract, finding that “this issue is…
A federal court in California has determined that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not met the standard for the court to issue an order amending the deadlines set forth in its June 2013 order for promulgating and finalizing implementing regulations under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Ctr. for Food Safety v. Hamburg, No. 12-4529 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 13, 2013). Information about the court’s earlier order appears in Issue 489 of this Update. Because the plaintiff agreed that the proposed sanitary transport rule deadline could be extended, however, the court granted FDA’s motion only to this extent. The proposed rule must be published by January 31, 2014, and the court will allow comment on it until May 31. The final rule must be published as originally specified—no later than June 30, 2015. The court rejected FDA’s request to extend the deadline for promulgation of the…
A federal court in California has dismissed several of the claims in a putative nationwide class action alleging that Bromley Tea Co. makes unlawful and deceptive health-related claims on packaging labels and on its website for the company’s green and black teas. Clancy v. The Bromley Tea Co., No. 12-3003 (N.D. Cal., order entered August 9, 2013). The court rejected the defendant’s challenge to the plaintiff’s standing to assert claims as to products he had not purchased or statements he did not see before buying the products he did purchase. According to the court, “The named plaintiff has standing to assert claims relative to the products he purchased. He does not claim to have standing to assert claims related to other products. What he does claim is that he may be a potential representative of a class of people who have such standing. He may or may not be able…
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, addressing an issue of first impression among the federal appellate courts under the Lanham Act, has affirmed a district court determination that Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport (FTE) cannot pursue trademark infringement litigation as a “legal representative” of the Russian Federation because while that government designated FTE as its legal representative, it is not legally unable to bring the suit on its own behalf. Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. SPI Spirits Ltd., No. 11-4109 (2d Cir., decided August 5, 2013). So ruling, the Second Circuit held that the Lanham Act’s use of the term “legal representative” requires in addition to an appointment that the appointing entity be unable to appear in the litigation. Another issue addressed was whether FTE was an “assign” of the Russian Federation under a series of documents created since 2002; the court concluded that the documents did not create an assignment.…
According to news sources, French President François Hollande has said that the country will maintain its prohibition on growing genetically modified (GM) corn sold by Monsanto, despite a Council of State court ruling reversing the moratorium on the ground that it had little legal basis. The ban on MON810 corn has been in effect in France since February 2008 and was extended in 2012. The July 29, 2013, court ruling was the second to overturn the ban—the first ruling, in 2011, was also ignored by former President Nicolas Sarkozy. While Monsanto was not a party, it said in response to the verdict, “The decision by the Conseil d’État is welcome support for a science- and evidence-based approach to GM crop policy in France and the EU. The decision confirms that farmers throughout the EU should have the right to use seeds that European authorities have approved for use throughout the…
New York City has filed an appeal from an intermediate appellate court ruling finding that the city Board of Health exceeded its authority by adopting a regulation restricting the size of sugar-sweetened soft drinks sold in certain venues. N.Y. Statewide Coal. of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. NYC Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, No. ___ (N.Y., appeal filed August 2, 2013). Details about the intermediate appellate court decision appear in Issue 492 of this Update. According to the city’s motion for leave to appeal, the Court of Appeals erred in (i) applying separation-of-powers doctrine to a local administrative agency; the city argues that municipalities determine their governmental structure and often create bodies with overlapping powers; (ii) ruling that the Board of Health lacks legislative powers when it derives its authority from charters explicitly recognizing those powers, and case law has defined the board as “the sole legislative authority within the City…
The Center for Food Safety has filed its reply to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) request that a federal court in California reconsider the Food Safety Modernization Act implementation rulemaking deadlines it established for the agency. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Hamburg, No. 12-4529 (N.D. Cal., filed August 2, 2013). Additional information about FDA’s motion appears in Issue 492 of this Update. While the center argues that FDA is attempting to re-litigate issues the court has already decided, it does not oppose a one-time, 60-day deadline extension for the food transportation rule. Meanwhile, FDA has issued notices extending until November 15, 2013, the comment periods on its proposed “Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food” and “Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of Produce for Human Consumption.” According to FDA, the extension will allow stakeholders to consider the interrelationships between…
A federal court in California has determined that EAS Consulting Group LLC and one of its employees, a former acting director in the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Food Labeling, must be barred from discussing issues with plaintiffs’ counsel in litigation against Chobani, Inc. and are disqualified as experts in the case, finding that the regulatory consulting company improperly agreed to consult with plaintiffs’ counsel in consumer fraud litigation against food companies after discussing confidential litigation strategy and issues with Chobani’s defense counsel. Kane v. Chobani, Inc., No. 12-2425 (N.D. Cal, San Jose Div., order entered August 2, 2013). Details about the litigation appear in Issue 491 of this Update. So ruling, the court denied Chobani’s request to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel unless they communicate further with EAS about the issues in this putative class action without a waiver from Chobani. According to the court, while confidential information about the…
