A woman who formerly worked as a LongHorn Steakhouse server has asked a federal court for permission to modify her motion for a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act following the court’s denial of her motion in December 2012 on the ground that she lacked personal knowledge as to practices at the company’s steakhouses across the country. Velez v. GMRI, Inc., No. 12-4857 (N.D. Ill., filed January 14, 2013). The suit involves claims that the defendant failed to pay minimum wages. As part of her motion, the plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint “both to correct the LongHorn corporate entities brought in as defendants, and to clarify the claims brought under the collective procedure.” According to the motion, “the only claim on which Plaintiff seeks collective treatment is the claim that Defendants required tipped employees to perform non-tipped duties while paid the tip-credit wage rate, in violation of…
Category Archives Litigation
A federal court in California has dismissed statutory and common law claims filed in a putative class action against Sioux Honey Association Cooperative, alleging that the company falsely labels its Sue Bee Clover Honey® product as “honey,” despite removing the pollen from the product. Ross v. Sioux Honey Ass’n Coop., No. 12-1645 (N.D. Cal., decided January 14, 2013). The court found the claims preempted or insufficiently pleaded in the plaintiff’s third amended complaint and, concluding that any further amendment would be futile, granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. So ruling, the court declined to rule that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit, finding that her pleadings satisfied the requirements of Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011), in which the California Supreme Court recognized that allegations of economic injury arising from reliance on a product manufacturer’s alleged misrepresentations satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for standing under…
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a consent decree with a federal court in Texas to resolve claims that a Burger King franchise operator discriminated against a former cashier on the basis of religion. EEOC v. Fries Rest. Mgmt., LLC, No. 12 3169 (N.D. Tex., filed January 16, 2013). Without admitting liability, the operator has agreed to settle the claims by paying $25,000 to the former employee, who was allegedly fired for wearing a skirt on the job as required by her Pentecostal Christian religion, in two checks: one for $5,000 attributable to wages, and one for $20,000 attributable to claims of mental anguish and suffering. The Burger King franchisee will also post on employee bulletin boards “its policy against religious discrimination and duty to accommodate” and “conduct an annual training session [in 2013 and 2014] for all district managers and general managers for Defendant’s Texas Burger King Restaurants,…
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued a final decision in a complaint alleging that POM Wonderful made false and misleading claims by advertising its pomegranate juice products with health-benefit assertions that the company contended were backed by medical research. In re POM Wonderful LLC, No. 9344 (FTC, decided January 10, 2013). Additional information about the matter appears in Issue 441 of this Update. Henceforth, two randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) will be required before POM can make a claim that any of its products treat, prevent or reduce the risk of heart disease, prostate cancer or erectile dysfunction (ED). Any efficacy or health benefit claims falling short of disease claims will require substantiation consisting of “competent and reliable scientific evidence . . . that must be sufficient in quality and quantity when considered in the light of the entire body of relevant and reliable scientific evidence, to substantiate that the…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against General Mills, Inc. alleging that two of its frozen vegetable “steamers” products are falsely advertised as “100% Natural” because they contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients. Cox v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-6377 (N.D. Cal., filed December 17, 2012). According to the complaint, the products contain GM corn, soy, corn derivatives, and/or soy derivatives. Seeking to certify a statewide class of those who have purchased Green Giant Valley Fresh Steamers®, the plaintiff alleges violations of California’s False Advertising and Unfair Competition laws and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. She requests injunctive relief; restitution; disgorgement; actual, statutory and punitive damages; attorney’s fees; costs; and interest.
A federal court in California has determined that Asian-American interest organizations have not sustained their burden of showing that they are entitled to preliminarily enjoin the shark fin ban that took effect January 1, 2012, in the state. Chinatown Neighborhood Ass’n v. Brown, No. 12-3759 (N.D. Cal., decided January 2, 2013). Additional details about the case appear in Issue 447 of this Update. The court found that the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail on their claims of discrimination against the Chinese-American community that uses shark fins in traditional dishes served at many banquets and special events. Finding that the state had a rational basis to impose limits on shark finning and that the state regulations did not overlap federal restrictions, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Ruling that the named plaintiff’s claims are not typical of those of the putative class in a false-labeling suit brought against the companies that made and marketed Skinnygirl Margaritas®, a federal court in New York has denied his motion for class certification. Rapcinsky v. Skinnygirl Cocktails, L.L.C., No. 11-6546 (S.D.N.Y., decided January 9, 2013). The named plaintiff, a Massachusetts resident, allegedly purchased the product in that state as a gift for his wife who had indicated that she had been served the beverage during a party with friends and liked it. He brought the suit under New York statutes that apply to products purchased in New York and involve deceptive acts or practices involving in-state residents. He also claimed common-law breach of warranty. According to the court, the laws invoked do not protect the plaintiff’s purchases. While his alleged injury may be the same as class members, the plaintiff, “having not…
A federal court in Minnesota has granted the motion for summary judgment filed by a company whose insurance carrier claimed it was not required to cover the company’s settlement of claims arising from a recall of instant oatmeal purportedly contaminated with instant milk produced at a facility where the Food and Drug Administration “detected insanitary conditions and salmonella.” The Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Main St. Ingredients, LLC, No. 11-533 (D. Minn., decided January 8, 2013). The company had supplied the instant milk to Malt-o-Meal which used it to make instant oatmeal. After the instant milk and downstream products such as the oatmeal were recalled, Malt-o-Meal sued both the supplier and the company that had produced the instant milk. While none of the supplier’s instant milk was found to contain Salmonella, the case ultimately settled for $1.4 million. The insurance company sued the supplier, Main Street Ingredients, for a declaration that…
A federal court in New Mexico has approved a consent decree of permanent injunction between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Sunland, Inc., which owns a facility where peanut butter products purportedly tainted with Salmonella were produced. United States v. Sunland, Inc., No. 12-1312 (D.N.M., filed December 21, 2012). The outbreak affected “at least 35 people from 19 states,” eight of whom “were hospitalized as a result of their infection.” While the company neither admits nor denies FDA’s allegations, it agreed to take a number of actions to correct food-handling practices “that likely resulted in cross-contamination between raw peanuts and peanuts that had been roasted or brined.” The company must “develop and implement sanitation control programs; provide FDA the opportunity to inspect the facilities to assure Sunland’s compliance with the consent decree, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and applicable regulations; and receive written authorization from FDA to resume…
A federal court in Alabama has dismissed breach of contract and warranty claims filed against a company that makes Florida Natural® orange juice and markets it as “fresh,” “100%” or “pure,” finding that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers. Veal v. Citrus World, Inc., No. 12-801 (N.D. Ala., decided January 8, 2013). The court refused to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint for a fourth time on the grounds that no amendment can cure its deficiencies and bad faith. According to the court, “This is plaintiff’s counsel’s fourth attempt (not counting the arguments before the MDL [multidistrict litigation] panel) to pursue a class action against defendant based on the same inherently flawed theory of liability. Upon not being included as class counsel in the MDL, plaintiff’s counsel returned here and went shopping for plaintiffs in an attempt to manufacture a…
