According to a news source, Dole Food Co. has tentatively agreed to settle the pesticide exposure claims of more than 5,000 former banana plantation workers in Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Honduras. They are represented by Provost Umphrey, whose lawyers apparently ensured that the workers had actually been employed on the plantations and experienced personal injuries from exposure to dibromochloropropane. Similar claims filed by other trial lawyers and involving hundreds of other plaintiffs have been dismissed due to alleged legal wrongdoing, including falsified medical records, client coaching and the intimidation of Dole investigators. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined in March 2011 that a $97 million judgment reached in a Nicaraguan court against Dole and several other companies could not be recognized under Florida law. The terms of the preliminary settlement have not reportedly been disclosed. See The National Law Journal, June 14, 2011.
Category Archives Litigation
The parties to putative nationwide class actions alleging that Unilever U.S., Inc. falsely advertised that its margarine spreads, including Country Crock® and I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter®, were good for cardiovascular health are seeking final court approval of a non-monetary settlement that will require the company to remove the trans fat from its products. Rosen/Red v. Unilever U.S., Inc., Nos. 09-02563, 10-00387 (N.D. Cal, joint motion filed June 6, 2011). Class counsel will receive up to $490,000 in fees if the settlement is approved, and the named plaintiffs will receive up to $4,500. Class members will give up their right to any other equitable or monetary relief. The joint motion contends that the product reformulation is a substantial benefit to class members because the company is “the world’s leading manufacturer of margarine” and that requiring the company to do this “will substantially benefit its customers and will encourage competitors to…
A federal court in Arkansas has determined that Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. has a duty to defend an agricultural cooperative in more than 170 civil lawsuits filed by rice farmers over the contamination of their conventional crops with a genetically engineered (GE) variety. Riceland Foods, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., No. 10-00091 (E.D. Ark., decided June 8, 2011). The court found that while the relevant commercial general liability policies precluded coverage for cross-pollination, they were silent as to liability for the physical mixing of a contaminating crop “with conventional rice during harvest, processing, transportation, or storage,” which the plaintiffs alleged in addition to cross-pollination as an independent cause of their injury. The court held that “the duty to defend remains when cross-pollination is presented as one of several potentially independent causes of the damage.” The court also determined Liberty had no obligation to defend a European rice distributor that was sued in…
A federal court in California has denied Safeway, Inc.’s motion to dismiss or stay proceedings alleging that it has an obligation to use information in its loyalty card customer database to provide email notice about produce recalls ordered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or U.S. Department of Agriculture. Hensley-Maclean v. Safeway, Inc., No. 11-1230 (N.D. Cal., order entered June 13, 2011). Additional details about the case, which was first filed in state court, appear in Issue 380 of this Update. The grocery company argued that the “primary jurisdiction doctrine” or “equitable abstention” required the court to dismiss or stay the litigation “until and unless regulatory agencies have had the opportunity to consider and adopt appropriate rules governing the obligations a grocery store has with respect to providing its customers notice of such recalls.” According to Safeway, the Food Safety Modernization Act requires FDA to develop notice guidelines by…
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the time poultry workers spend donning and doffing protective gear at the beginning and end of their shifts must be compensated as an “integral and indispensable” part of the principal activity of employment. Perez v. Mountaire Farms, Inc., No. 09-1917 (4th Cir., decided June 7, 2011). Because the time the employees spent doffing and donning some of their gear during an uncompensated meal break was related to their meal break and took a minimal amount of time, the court ruled that time noncompensable. The court found that the employer did not willfully violate the law, thus a two-year statute of limitations was applied to the litigation. And the lack of willfulness was found to be evidence of its good faith, so the court denied the employees’ request for liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
A California court of appeal has ruled valid the methods by which the state updates the list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop. 65). Cal. Chamber of Commerce v. Brown, No. A125493 (Cal. Ct. App., decided June 6, 2011). Products containing these chemicals must be labeled with warnings to consumers. The law requires the state to update the Prop. 65 list annually and authorizes Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to add chemicals by one of three methods, including one specifically targeted in the lawsuit. The Chamber of Commerce challenged the method that requires adding to the list those chemicals identified under the Labor Code as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity. According to the Chamber, this method could be used to place chemicals on the initial list only. It sought a declaration to this effect…
Another tomato grower has filed a claim for damages against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), alleging that the agency announced a nationwide recall of all tomatoes in the United States in 2008 without having identified tomatoes as the source of a Salmonella outbreak. Williams Farms Produce Sales, Inc. v. United States, No. 11-01399 (D.S.C., filed June 8, 2011). Details about similar claims also filed in a South Carolina federal court appear in Issue 395 of this Update. According to the complaint, FDA ultimately conceded that tomatoes were not the source of the Salmonella contamination, but not before the price for tomatoes plunged. Alleging negligence, defamation, slander of title, product/ commercial disparagement, unconstitutional taking, and violation of unfair trade practices law, the plaintiff seeks actual damages in excess of $11 million, special damages, compensatory damages, treble damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Alabama and Indiana residents have filed a putative class action alleging violation of state consumer protection laws by a company that promotes its orange juice as “not from concentrate juice” and “100% pure Florida squeezed,” when it allegedly “contains orange juice concentrate and water.” Leftwich v. TWS Mktg. Group, Inc., No. 11-01879 (D. Ala., filed June 2, 2011). Seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers, the plaintiffs refer to a Food and Drug Administration letter warning the defendant that its labeling violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The plaintiffs contend that they were misled by the product labeling and that the alleged misrepresentations were a substantial factor in influencing their decisions to purchase the products. They allege a loss of money, because they were “deprived of the benefit of their bargain.” The plaintiffs allege violations of consumer protection laws, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. Claiming…
A New York bakery and its shareholder have filed a trademark infringement action against the Food Network, claiming that its proposed “Tough Cookies” show would confuse consumers. One Tough Cookie, Inc. v. Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc., No. 11-03675 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 31, 2011). According to the complaint, the Food Network has adopted “Tough Cookies” as the name of a “reality” TV series that will air in July 2011. It is apparently based on a “specialty bakery in New Jersey” called Crazy Susan’s Cookie Co. The plaintiffs allege that they are nationally known for “concentrating in ‘edible art’ in the form of cakes, cookies, and other pastries and baked goods” and registered their One Tough Cookie® mark in 2006. The plaintiffs also allege, “Each time the ‘Tough Cookies’ television show airs, plaintiffs’ website and web server will be compromised due to television fans attempting to find the ‘Tough Cookies’ television show…
A federal judge in California has refused to dismiss proposed class actions alleging that Ben & Jerry’s and Breyers ice cream products were falsely advertised as all natural. Astiana v. Ben & Jerry’s Homemade, Inc., No. 10-4387 (N.D. Cal., decided May 26, 2011); Thurston v. Conopco, Inc., No. 10-4937 (N.D. Cal., decided May 26, 2011). Filed after the Center for Science in the Public Interest drew attention to the issue, the complaints argue that two units owned by Unilever PLC “misrepresented ice cream containing ‘Dutch’ or ‘alkalized cocoa’ as ‘all natural’” even though the ingredient is purportedly processed with synthetic potassium carbonate. The defendants had sought to dismiss both actions on the grounds that plaintiffs did not demonstrate an injury resulting from the “all natural” claim and could have easily applied for a refund if dissatisfied. Noting that plaintiffs may very well “have no actionable claims,” the court reasoned that, “If…
