A federal court in Georgia has overruled the government’s objections to Stewart Parnell’s representation by attorney Kenneth Hodges in the defense of criminal charges arising from a Salmonella outbreak allegedly traced to Parnell’s former company, Peanut Corp. of America. United States v. Parnell, 13-12 (M.D. Ga., order entered May 30, 2013). Because the government’s motion was sealed, further details about the objections are unknown. According to the court, Parnell “knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to object to Hodges’ potential or actual conflict.” Additional information about the criminal charges appears in Issue 472 of this Update.
Category Archives Litigation
A federal court in California has granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by Twinings North America, Inc. to the second amended putative class complaint filed by a woman who alleged that she paid a premium for the company’s green, black, white, and red teas relying on their purportedly misleading label—“a natural source of antioxidants.” Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc., No. 12-2646 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 23, 2013). The company sought to dismiss claims relating to products the plaintiff did not purchase, labeling the plaintiff did not see or advertising upon which the plaintiff did not rely. According to the court, as long as the “not purchased products” are nearly identical, a plaintiff may bring claims on behalf of others related to those products. Here, “Because the claims for 51 of the varieties of tea are based upon the exact same label describing…
A federal court in Florida has determined that a putative statewide class is not preempted under federal law from claiming that the presence of genetically modified (GM) corn in Campbell Soup Co. vegetable soups renders its “100% Natural” labeling representations false. Krzykwa v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 12-62058 (S.D. Fla., order entered May 24, 2013). The court also refused to dismiss the claims under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. In the original complaint, the plaintiff alleged that he purchased two soup products with GM corn. Their labels had been pre-approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) because they also contained chicken and the agency has pre-approval authority as to these products. Campbell argued that USDA’s seal of approval preempted state law-based labeling-related claims. Later complaint amendments changed the products at issue to vegetarian soups whose labels are under the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) regulatory purview and do not require pre-approval.…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling affirming the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) decision that genetically modified (GM) alfalfa is not a “plant pest” and thus that it lacked authority to stop its deregulation or to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential environmental impacts. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 12-15052 (9th Cir., decided May 17, 2013). The Center for Food Safety, an organization dedicated to environmental advocacy, has announced its determination to appeal the ruling and to pursue other legal options to stop the planting and cultivation of GM alfalfa. The gist of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is that while the plaintiffs’ environmental and economic concerns may be valid, they have no bearing, under the current statutory scheme, on APHIS’s authority vis-à-vis GM crops. The court’s opinion methodically explains how GM alfalfa is created…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has issued a final rule amending the Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) regulations to comply with a World Trade Organization (WTO) appellate ruling that certain provisions relating to muscle cut meat commodities were inconsistent the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), which includes an obligation “to accord imported products treatment no less favorable than that accorded to domestic products.” Effective May 23, 2013, the final rule requires origin designations for muscle cut covered commodities “to specify the production steps of birth, raising, and slaughter of the animal from which the meat is derived that took place in each country listed on the origin designation.” It also eliminates “the allowance for commingling of muscle cut covered commodities of different origins” and expands the definition for “retailer” “to include any person subject to be licensed as a retailer under…
The plaintiffs in putative class litigation alleging inaccurate wage statements and denial of required meal breaks have filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement brought against Starbucks in 2008. York v. Starbucks Corp., No. 08-7919 (C.D. Cal., W. Div., motion filed May 10, 2013). Without admitting liability, the company has apparently agreed to pay $3 million to resolve the claims of California Starbucks employees who fall into one or two subclasses: (i) the “Meal Break Settlement Subclass,” including “all persons employed by Starbucks within the state of California in the job categories of café attendant, barista, or shift supervisor during the period from December 2, 2004, to January 31, 2013”; and (ii) the “Wage Statement Settlement Subclass,” including “all persons employed by Starbucks in the state of California in the job categories of café attendant, barista, shift supervisor, assistant store manager, or store manager during the period…
A federal court in California has granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by General Mills in litigation alleging that certain of its Nature Valley® products are deceptively labeled and advertised as “natural” because they contain sweeteners, such as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), high-maltose corn syrup or maltodextrin and rice maltodextrin, which are purportedly “highly processed” and therefore not “natural.” Janney v. General Mills, No. 12-3919 (N.D. Cal., filed May 10, 2013). The plaintiffs are represented by Center for Science in the Public Interest attorney Stephen Gardner. The court disagreed with General Mills that the primary jurisdiction doctrine barred the claims, finding that the Food and Drug Administration “has signaled a relative lack of interest in devoting its limited resources to what it evidently considers a minor issue, or in establishing some ‘uniformity in administration’ with regard to the use of ‘natural’ in food…
A federal court in New York has dismissed putative class claims filed against Dannon Co., alleging that its Activia® yogurt products are not actually yogurt because they contain filler products including milk protein concentrate (MPC), an ingredient that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) purportedly prohibits from use in yogurt. Conroy v. The Dannon Co., Inc., 12-6901 (S.D.N.Y., decided May 9, 2013). The defendant challenged the claims on the ground that the “plaintiff’s allegations are premised on a misunderstanding of the FDA’s standard of identity for yogurt.” The court agreed with Dannon that while MPC is not included in the list of permissible ingredients for yogurt, it is a permitted “other optional ingredient” despite FDA’s failure to include MPC in its 1981 definition of the phrase. According to the court, the issue in the case was the proper interpretation of a stay FDA imposed in 1982 on certain provisions of…
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the request to review a Washington appeals court dismissal of claims filed by a man who alleged that contaminated pet food caused his cat’s death. Earl v. Menu Foods Income Fund, Inc., No. 12-1083 (U.S., cert. denied May 13, 2013). According to a news source, the defendant had recalled some of its pet foods due to melamine contamination, but the plaintiff apparently failed to produce admissible evidence that those foods were implicated in his pet’s death. In its opposition to the plaintiff’s petition to the Court, Menu Foods reportedly stated that no federal question was presented. Rather, at issue was whether state law on the preservation and destruction of evidence had been properly applied. See Bloomberg BNA Product Safety & Liability Reporter, May 13, 2013.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has filed a consumer-fraud lawsuit on behalf of the people of the state of California against Monster Beverage just one week after the company sued Herrera to halt his investigation into company advertising practices and demands. People v. Monster Beverage Corp., No. CGC-13-531161 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., filed May 6, 2013). According to Herrera’s press release, Monster Beverage’s preemptive suit constituted “‘forum shopping’ and a bid to win the race to the courthouse.” Details about Monster Energy’s lawsuit appear in Issue 482 of this Update. The new lawsuit alleges that the company “aggressively markets” its energy drink products to children and teenagers, fails to adequately warn consumers about the purported risks of consuming such products, and illegally sold its beverages until earlier this year as a dietary supplement. According to the complaint, product labels claim that three 16-ounce cans can be safely…
