Finding the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) proposed “target time-frames” “an inadequate response to the request that the parties submit a proposal regarding deadlines that can form the basis of an injunction,” a federal court in California will require the agency to publish all proposed regulations required under the Food Safety Modernization Act by November 30, 2013. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Hamburg, No. 12-4529 (N.D. Cal., decided June 21, 2013). The court further ordered FDA to close each comment period no later than March 31, 2014, and to finalize the rules no later than June 30, 2015. The order follows the court’s determination that FDA violated the FSMA and Administrative Procedure Act by failing to comply with the food safety rulemaking deadlines established by Congress. Additional details about the litigation appear in issues 481 and 487 of this Update.
Category Archives Litigation
A federal court in California has issued an order preliminarily certifying a nationwide class for settlement purposes and approved the class settlement in a case alleging that Barbara’s Bakery misled consumers by labeling its products as “all natural” with “no artificial additives,” “no artificial preservatives,” or “no artificial flavors,” when they contained genetically modified (GM), artificial or synthetic ingredients. Trammell v. Barbara’s Bakery, Inc., No. 12-2664 (N.D. Cal., order filed June 26, 2013). Under the proposed terms, the company would create a $4 million non-revertible fund to pay class member claims, an incentive award for the named plaintiff, attorney’s fees, and costs of notice and administration. Class members would able to recover up to $100 for the purchase of products including cereals, cereal bars, cheese puffs, fig bars, granola bars, Snackanimal® animal cookies, organic mini-cookies, snack mixes, and crackers. The settlement would also require the company to modify the labeling and…
A California resident who worked at a TGI Fridays in Los Angeles has filed a putative class action on behalf of a statewide class of current and former nonexempt employees, alleging that the restaurant failed to pay them (i) when they showed up for their shifts but were told to go home due to light customer traffic, (ii) for the time they spent in mandatory meetings, and (iii) all the wages and other compensation due upon their discharge, termination or separation “either timely or fully.” Portillo v. TGI Fridays, Inc., No. BC12119 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed June 14, 2013). Alleging causes of action for failure to pay reporting time, waiting time damages, and unfair, unlawful or deceptive business practices, the plaintiff seeks compensatory and liquidated damages, interest, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Women who worked at celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay’s Los Angeles restaurant, The Fat Cow, have filed a putative class action on behalf of all nonexempt employees against the restaurant and his company, alleging they were denied meal and rest breaks, were not compensated for the missed breaks, were not compensated for overtime, were not paid minimum wage, were not provided with timely and accurate wage-and-hour statements, did not promptly receive accrued wages when they left the job, and did not receive all of the gratuities contributed to a tip pool, which they claim the defendants improperly converted. Becerra v. The Fat Cow LLC, No. BC511953 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed June 13, 2013). The named plaintiffs include two former hostesses, a server and a barista. They seek economic damages, injunctive relief, restitution, the imposition of civil penalties, punitive damages, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.
A salesman has reportedly filed a discrimination lawsuit against his former employer in a New York state court alleging that the employer, who had invited the salesman to return to his job in a frame shop, asked him to leave when he saw how much weight the salesman had gained since leaving the shop in 2008. Bogadanove v. Frame It In Brooklyn, No. ___ (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., filing date n/a). According to the complaint, former employer Jerry Greenberg took one look at Seth Bogadanove on his return and said “Oh my God, what happened to you, you got so fat!” When Bogadanove attempted to explain that medication he was taking caused the weight gain, Greenberg allegedly said, “Oh my God, I am so sorry, I can’t use you, there is no way you can work here at your size. You wouldn’t fit between the aisles.” Bogadanove then purportedly…
According to news sources, the companies that make 5-Hour Energy have filed a complaint in an Oregon state court seeking a declaration that the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) is not entitled to what the companies contend are trade secrets, that is, the amounts of ingredients used to make the energy shots. Oregon’s DOJ is apparently part of an executive committee leading a 33-state investigation into Innovation Ventures, LLC and Living Essentials, LLC and has demanded a list of ingredients, including their amounts, to decide whether the companies were justified in claiming that use of the product does not lead to a “crash.” While the companies reportedly provided the DOJ with copies of materials submitted to the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus to support their ad claims in 2007, they redacted the amounts, but not the ingredients, claiming that they are “highly confidential and proprietary…
Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Kellogg Co. in a California federal court alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling its Super Mario Fruit Snacks® and Pop Tarts® as “Made with Real Fruit.” Spevak v. Kellogg Co., No. 13-2767, Barnes v. Kellogg Co., No. 13-2768, Ford v. Kellogg Co., No. 13-2770 (N.D. Cal., filed June 14, 2013). Each plaintiff is represented by Benjamin Lopatin in the Law Offices of Howard Rubinstein. Plaintiff Alicia Spevak alleges that the “real fruit” claim is misleading because the fruit snack product “merely contains de minimis real fruit and unhealthy, unnatural ingredients, chemicals and preservative additives, in addition to merely containing apple puree rather than real fruit, which a reasonable consumer would not expect from a product claiming to be ‘Made with Real Fruit.’” Spevak seeks to represent a class of California product purchasers and alleges unfair, fraudulent and unlawful business practices; false and…
The parent of a 14-year-old with type 2 diabetes has sued several companies that make high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), alleging that the substance is “toxic” and its consumption caused the teen’s disease. S.F. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., No. 13-634 (W.D.N.Y., filed June 17, 2013). The complaint details the purported effects of HFCS on the human body, asserting that it is associated with metabolic disease, liver inflammation and insulin resistance, chronic hyperinsulinemia, and type 2 diabetes. It also alleges that the fructose in HFCS “‘tricks’ the brain into wanting more food and stimulates excessive and continued consumption” and that it “bypasses the insulin-driven satiety system, suppressing ‘the degree of satiety’ that would normally result from a meal of glucose or sucrose, thereby causing and contributing to over consumption on a chronic basis with the adverse effects therefrom including the development of type 2 diabetes.” Alleging that HFCS use and consumption have “become nearly…
A federal court in California has denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that the company misleads consumers by claiming that its Smart Balance® butter products contain plant sterols that can block the absorption of cholesterol; according to the plaintiff, a single serving of the product contains insufficient sterols to achieve the stated benefit. Aguilar v. Boulder Brands, Inc., No. 12-1862 (S.D. Cal., order entered June 10, 2013). Among other matters, the court determined that the named plaintiff had standing to assert claims involving two products that she did not purchase, because the products “advertise the same health benefits arising from the same additional ingredients found on the label in the same position” as the product she did purchase. According to the court, her ability to represent class members allegedly injured by similar products must be analyzed under Rule 23 and not on a motion to…
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) has granted the defendants’ motion for centralization in litigation involving allegations that Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc., and Doctor’s Associates, Inc., “engaged in a false or misleading advertising campaign regarding the size of the Subway Footlong sandwich.” In Re: Subway Footlong Sandwich Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 2439 (JPML, decided June 10, 2013). According to the order, the seven actions addressed by JPML involve common factual questions, with plaintiffs alleging “that defendants have uniform standards and practices with respect to the manufacturing process and franchisee training which result in the actual length of the sandwich being materially shorter than advertised in violation of state consumer protection laws.” JPML has therefore chosen to centralize the actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, which provides “a geographically central forum for this nationwide litigation, and will be convenient and accessible for…
