According to news sources, several U.S. beekeeping companies have filed lawsuits under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), alleging that the defendant companies illegally imported honey from China thus evading millions of dollars in anti-dumping duties and depressing the price for domestic honey. Moore v. Groeb, No. 13-2905 (N.D. Ill., filed April 17, 2013); Adee Honey Farms v. Groeb Farms, Inc., No. 13-2922 (N.D. Ill., filed April 18, 2013). Among other things, the complaint alleges that some of the imported honey contained adulterated antibiotics, was not actually honey and was falsely represented to government authorities as honey from countries other than China. The plaintiffs reportedly cite a February 2013 agreement between defendant Groeb Farms and the federal government indicating that the company’s “unlawful actions ‘caused losses to the United States of no less than $78,866,216’ in the form of unpaid antidumping duties” during a four-year period. As part…
Category Archives Litigation
A federal court in California has determined that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has violated the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to promulgate, within FSMA deadlines, food-safety rules that implement the law. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Hamburg, No. 12-4529 (N.D. Cal., decided April 22, 2013). According to the court, Congress “intended that the implementing regulations be promulgated and finalized by a date certain. The dates set for completion of the regulations in the seven areas identified in the complaint have passed. However, that does not mean that the FSMA now should be interpreted as granting the FDA total discretion in deciding when to finalize the regulations. . . . Thus, the court finds that the imposition of an injunction imposing deadlines for finalization of the regulations would be consistent with the underlying purposes of the FSMA.” Still, agreeing with FDA “that the purpose…
A federal court in California has ordered Bumble Bee Foods, LLC to produce “documents dating back to 2004 regarding the marketing and labeling strategies for the products [plaintiff] purchased and for products with the same Omega-3 label or with nearly identical labels” in a putative nationwide consumer-fraud class action. Ogden v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, No. 12-1828 (N.D. Cal., order entered April 16, 2013). The named plaintiff seeks to represent class members who purchased products she did not buy and purchased a product made by a separate company that is not a defendant in the case. According to the court, the discovery dispute was about whether Bumble Bee “must produce discovery on all of its products . . . from eight years prior to the initiation of this lawsuit . . . [and involving] King Oscar.” The court determined that it was not appropriate to consider whether the named plaintiff has…
A federal court in California has decided that some consumer-fraud claims brought by an animal rights group and a company that makes vegan faux foie gras against Hudson Valley Foie Gras (HVFG) over statements that the defendant’s product is “the humane choice” may proceed. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. HVFG, L.L.C., No. 12-5809 (N.D. Cal., order entered April 12, 2013). While California prohibits the production of foie gras, which involves force-feeding ducks, the law does not prevent out-of-state producers, such as New York-based HVFG, from marketing in the state or shipping its product there. While the court reportedly acknowledged that a definition for “humane” is “hard to pin down,” it found that the plaintiffs might be able to prove use of the term by HVFG false if the production process is shown to cause ducks an undue amount of pain. The court dismissed the Animal Legal Defense Fund from the lawsuit…
A federal court in California has granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in a putative class action alleging that the companies falsely label and market Splenda Essentials with Antioxidants®, Splenda Essentials with Fiber® and Splenda Essentials with B Vitamins®. Bronson v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., No. 12-4184 (N.D. Cal., order entered April 16, 2013). Dismissed with leave to amend were claims brought under the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act to the extent that the claims include statements made on the defendants’ website or in print ads. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to allege that they relied on these statements when purchasing the products. Also dismissed with leave to amend are claims about the Fiber and B Vitamins products because the plaintiffs relied on lack of scientific substantiation theories which cannot be asserted…
According to a news source, a Michigan state court has approved a settlement of claims that a McDonald’s franchisee falsely advertised some of its chicken products as halal, or prepared in accordance with Muslim dietary restrictions. Ahmed v. Finley’s Mgmt. Co., No. 11-014559-CZ (Mich. Cir. Ct., Wayne Cty., settlement approved April 17, 2013). The settlement was approved despite objections that the $700,000 settlement fund would be unfairly distributed, for the most part, to two charities without compensating those harmed by the purported fraud. Additional information about the litigation appears in issues 468, 471, 473, and 475 of this Update. The attorney who was a member of the class, posted objections to the settlement on his Facebook® page and successfully defeated a gag order imposed by the court has reportedly indicated that he does not plan to appeal after plaintiffs’ counsel assured him that some of their $233,000 in fees would…
A divided Illinois appeals court has determined that Jimmy John’s Enterprises and one of its franchisees must continue to defend four of seven claims in a personal injury suit arising from a motor vehicle accident involving one of its delivery drivers. Reynolds v. Jimmy John’s Enters., LLC, No. 4-12-139 (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist., decided April 2, 2013). The plaintiff, who was riding a motorcycle when the accident occurred and purportedly sustained permanently disabling injuries, alleged that the driver was negligently supervised and trained and thus made an illegal turn into his path in an effort to comply with the food company’s promise of “freaky fast” food delivery, that is, that “deliveries will be made within 15 minutes of receiving the sandwich order.” Finding that the defendants did not properly bring their motion to dismiss under the state’s procedural rules, the court majority found that the trial court erred in…
A federal court in California has issued a tentative rejection of a settlement reached in a putative class action alleging that Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc. falsely claims that its ice cream is all natural despite containing genetically modified ingredients. Tobin v. Conopco Inc., No. 12-5881 (N.D. Cal., notice filed April 15, 2013). The court’s notice of tentative ruling also raises questions for hearing including (i) “what is the parties’ best argument that venue is proper in this district,” (ii) are the plaintiff’s claims typical of the class claims in light of the defendants’ contention that she lacks standing to bring her claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (iii) is the parties’ proposed notice the best practicable, (iv) do the proposed cy pres charities have any nexus to the claims, and (iv) is it appropriate to reduce the funds available for settlement purposes to cover fees and administrative…
A federal court in Colorado has dismissed the defendants’ post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial thus upholding a $7.5 million jury award to plaintiffs who alleged personal injury from exposure to the diacetyl in microwave popcorn consumed at home. Watson v. Dillon Cos., Inc., No. 08-91 (D. Colo., order entered April 10, 2013). The court scheduled an April 18 hearing on post-trial motions to amend the judgment and for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. According to the court, in light of conflicting evidence as to the defendants’ knowledge about purported health effects from diacetyl exposure and whether non-workplace exposures are sufficient to cause injury, a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants knew about the risk and failed to warn consumers about it. The court also found the punitive damages appropriate because “a reasonable jury could conclude that the Defendants knew…
An Ohio appeals court has determined that Ohio legislators improperly enacted an appropriations bill rider that was intended to preempt a Cleveland ordinance prohibiting the use of “industrially produced trans fat” in foods prepared by retail food establishments and food service operations, such as fast-food restaurants, unless the foods were served “in a manufacturer’s original sealed package.” City of Cleveland v. Ohio, No. 98616 (Ohio Ct. App., 8th App. Dist., Cuyahoga Cty., decided March 28, 2013). Additional information about Cleveland’s lawsuit challenging the state law appears in Issue 422 of this Update. The court agreed with the city that the state law was an unconstitutional attempt to preempt the city from exercising its home rule powers under the state constitution and that the provisions, enacted as amendments to a state appropriations bill, violated the constitution’s one subject rule. In determining that the appropriations bill amendment was not a “general law,” the…
