A coalition of more than 50 trade organizations, seed businesses, farms, and farmers has filed a lawsuit in a federal court in New York, to stop Monsanto Co. from enforcing its genetically engineered (GE) seed patents against farmers whose fields become contaminated with the GE seeds. Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Co., No. 11-2163 (S.D.N.Y., filed March 29, 2011). Among other matters, the plaintiffs claim that the seed patents are invalid, because “only technology with a beneficial societal use may be patented,” they violate “the prohibition against double patenting, each is anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art, and each fails to satisfy the requirements of written description, enablement and best mode.” The plaintiffs also allege that the patents are not infringed by farmers whose fields become contaminated with GE seeds, because the farmers do not intend to use them, “and Monsanto’s patent rights in transgenic seed exhaust…
Category Archives Litigation
Nebraska Beef Ltd. has reportedly agreed to settle its lawsuit against Meyer Natural Foods LLC, and a federal court in Nebraska has apparently ordered the parties to file a motion to dismiss by April 25, 2011. Nebraska Beef recalled about 7 million pounds of beef in a 2008 E. coli outbreak linked to some 76 illnesses. According to a news source, some of the meat came from cattle that the defendant purchased and sent to Nebraska Beef’s plant for processing. While the terms of the settlement have not been disclosed, Nebraska Beef, which contends the contamination did not originate at its facility, had been seeking a declaration that it was not required to indemnify Meyer for legal claims related to the recalled meat filed against Meyer. See Fremont Tribune, March 26, 2011.
A federal court in New Jersey has granted in part the motion to dismiss filed by the Campbell Soup Co. in litigation alleging that consumers were misled by the company’s lower-sodium labels, believing they were a healthier alternative to regular soups, which allegedly contain about the same levels of sodium as the more expensive low-sodium versions. Smajlaj v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 10-1332 (D.N.J., decided March 23, 2011). The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of consumers, and named plaintiff Rosa Smajlaj has voluntarily dismissed her claims, so the suit will proceed with four other New Jersey residents as named plaintiffs. The defendant sought to dismiss the claims under the plausibility pleading standard established in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), and on the basis of federal preemption. The court determined that the claims of misleading labels were not…
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has reached a settlement with Dean Foods Co. over antitrust concerns about its acquisition of the Foremost Farms USA Coop. Under the agreement, which will be published in the Federal Register for comment and must undergo court approval, Dean will “divest a significant milk processing plant in Waukesha, Wis., and related assets . . . including the Golden Guernsey brand name.” The agreement also apparently requires Dean to “notify the department before it makes any future acquisition of milk processing plants for which the purchase price is more than $3 million.” According to DOJ, the divestiture will “restore competition in the sale of milk to schools, grocery stores, convenience stores and other retailers in Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin.” See Department of Justice Press Release, March 29, 2011.
Finding that the class definition approved by the district court was inconsistent with its analysis of the class certification requirements, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has returned litigation over the purportedly misleading digestive health claims for YoPlus yogurt to a district court in Florida. Fitzpatrick v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-11064 (11th Cir., decided March 25, 2011). Additional information about the case appears in Issue 296 of this Update. When it decided to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, the district court apparently defined the class as “all persons who purchased YoPlus in the State of Florida to obtain its claimed digestive health benefit.” The defendant challenged this definition on the ground that it requires individualized fact-finding, and the court had specifically determined that common issues predominate over individualized issues. According to the appellate court, the district court “conducted a detailed analysis of the requirements necessary for a…
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court ruling finding that a $97 million judgment entered by a Nicaraguan court to compensate 150 Nicaraguan agricultural workers for injuries allegedly caused by workplace exposure to a pesticide is unenforceable under Florida law. Osorio v. Dow Chem. Co., No. 10-11143 (11th Cir., decided March 25, 2011). The appellate court agreed that (i) “the Nicaraguan court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and/or personal jurisdiction over the defendants”; (ii) “the foreign judgment could not be recognized in Florida because the judgment was ‘rendered under a system which does not provide . . . procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law’”; and (iii) “the Nicaraguan judgment could not be recognized under Florida law because doing so would be repugnant to Florida public policy.” The court declined to address whether Nicaragua “as a whole ‘does not provide impartial tribunals’” and also…
Relying on the first-to-file rule, a federal court in New Jersey has transferred a putative class action alleging false advertising for a Breyers ice cream product to a federal court in California that is considering similar litigation. Catanese v. Unilever d/b/a/ Breyers, No. 10-5755 (D.N.J., decided March 28, 2011). The plaintiffs in a number of cases have alleged that ice cream containing alkalized cocoa cannot be advertised as “all natural” because alkalized cocoa powder is chemically altered. The first such case was filed in a California federal court against Ben & Jerry’s, a Unilever company, in September 2010. A nearly identical action involving Breyers products was also filed in a California federal court three days before the Catanese plaintiffs filed their complaint. According to the court, “Conducting this class action in one forum will benefit both the public and private interests by avoiding duplicative litigation.” Information about a similar case filed in…
Kellogg Co. has filed a lawsuit in a Michigan federal court against the Canadian packaging company that supplied allegedly defective liners with “offensive characteristics” (taste and odor) that purportedly caused nausea and diarrhea in some Kellogg cereal consumers and forced a “costly nationwide recall” of four company products. Kellogg Co. v. FPC Flexible Packaging Corp., No. 11-272 (W.D. Mich., S. Div., filed March 18, 2011). The cereal maker alleges violations of Michigan’s Uniform Commercial Code, breach of contract and express and implied indemnification. Alleging damages in excess of $75,000, Kellogg also seeks a declaratory judgment that it is not liable for payment of $3.3 million in materials still in the packaging company’s possession or for the $1.04 million in defective liners provided to Kellogg. According to the complaint, the packaging company has demanded payment for the liners and the materials used in their production.
Nearly 700 heirs and estates of Colombian citizens allegedly killed by “a right-wing terrorist organization” that purportedly received financial and other support from Chiquita Brands International and its subsidiaries and affiliates have sued the companies seeking monetary, injunctive and declaratory relief. Does 1 through 677 v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., No. 11-00582 (D.D.C., filed March 17, 2011). The lawsuit involves claims and litigants not included in similar litigation filed in 2010. The plaintiffs, who claim to be the “family members of trade unionists, banana workers, political organizers, social activists, and others targeted and killed by terrorists,” allege that the defendants “funded, armed, and otherwise supported” a paramilitary organization “to produce bananas in an environment free from labor opposition and social disturbances.” According to the plaintiffs, the companies’ actions violated Colombian, U.S. and international law “prohibiting crimes against humanity, extrajudicial killing, torture, war crimes, and other abuses.”
An advocate general to the European Court of Justice has reportedly issued an opinion stating that French authorities violated European Union (EU) law by suspending the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) maize on French soil without first asking the European Commission to adopt emergency measures. While such opinions do not bind the court, sources indicate that they are generally adopted. The opinion is apparently expected to affect policies in other member nations, such as Austria and Greece, that turned to the court for guidance after GM crop companies filed suit challenging national restrictions. According to Advocate General Paolo Mengozzi, the EU authorized cultivation of the GM seed at issue for animal feed in 1998, and when Monsanto sought reauthorization of the 10-year license in 2007, France outlawed the seed’s cultivation. The country invoked an EU law safeguard provision, adopted in 2004, that provides where “new or additional information” emerging after original…
