A New York resident has filed a putative class action against Diamond Foods, Inc. in a California federal court alleging that the company labeled its walnuts with false claims that “consumption of the omega-3 fatty acids in walnuts promotes heart health and lowers the risk of coronary heart disease.” Zeisel v. Diamond Foods, Inc., No. 10-1192 (N.D. Cal., filed March 22, 2010). The plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class of consumers who purchased the company’s shelled walnut products since March 19, 2006, and claims that he relied on the product labels to make his purchasing decision. The complaint alleges unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices; false advertising; violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks an order certifying the class, restitution of either the amounts paid to purchase the products or the company’s profits from the transactions, an order enjoining further misleading advertisements, attorney’s…
Category Archives Litigation
The U.S. district court judge now presiding over the obesity-related claims in Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp. has ordered the parties to refile a number of documents previously submitted on motions addressing class certification. Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 02-7821 (S.D.N.Y., order entered March 24, 2010). Among the documents the court has requested are the defendant’s motion for an order striking the class allegations in plaintiffs’ second amended complaint and plaintiffs’ cross motion to certify a class and motion for an order further denying the defendant’s motion to strike. Filed in 2002 and appealed twice to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, this litigation seeks damages for the obesity-related health conditions of teenagers who contend they were misled by fast food advertising. Claims that the food consumed in defendant’s restaurants caused the plaintiffs’ health problems are no longer in the case.
A federal court in Illinois has dismissed with prejudice the second amended complaint filed in putative class litigation alleging that a chicken processing company violated state consumer fraud and protection laws by selling its whole chickens with the extra giblets that it cannot sell with its cut-up chicken portions or as pet food. Nieto v. Perdue Farms, Inc., No. 08-07399 (N.D. Ill., filed March 17, 2010). According to the complaint, the defendant placed more than one heart, liver, gizzard, or neck in the whole chickens the company sold, thereby increasing the total weight of a whole chicken and “effectively forcing consumers to subsidize [defendant’s] costs of disposing of the extra giblets.” The named plaintiff also alleged that the company concealed its policy of including the extra offal when communicating with customers “through advertising generally and at the point of sale.” Finding that it had jurisdiction over the claims under the…
According to a news source, a putative class action has been filed against retailer Loblaw and meat processor Siena Foods Ltd. following a listeriosis outbreak that sickened a number of Canadian consumers and led to a nationwide recall of salami and prosciutto products. While one press outlet has indicated that the bacterium which sickened two individuals has been matched genetically to the Siena meat, another reports that none of the recent five listeriosis-related deaths has been linked to Siena products. The lawsuit apparently alleges that Siena was aware of its products’ “potential toxicity” but failed to inform consumers, deciding instead to advise its distributors. Siena Foods is apparently closing its facility the weekend of March 20-21, 2010, to sanitize the plant. Meanwhile, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is reportedly trying to hire new meat inspectors to increase its inspections of some 80 meat-processing plants. The United States requires inspections every…
A New York resident has sued Campbell Soup Co. alleging that its “Less Sodium” and “Healthy Request” tomato soups are falsely advertised because they contain the same levels of salt and fat as the company’s “regular” tomato soup. Smajlaj v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 10-1332 D.N.J., filed March 12, 2010). Seeking to certify a nationwide class of soup purchasers, the plaintiff alleges that while the company’s “25% Less Sodium” tomato soup contains 480 mg of sodium per serving, so does the company’s “regular” tomato soup. She also alleges that “Healthy Request” soup, advertised as “low in fat and cholesterol,” contains 1.5 grams of fat per serving, while the “regular” tomato soup has 0 grams of fat per serving. According to the complaint, the company sells the “Less Sodium” and “Healthy Request” soups “for a substantially higher price—up to at least 50% higher,” than the “regular” soup. The plaintiff alleges violation of…
A New York resident has filed a false-advertising class action in a California federal court against the companies that make certain ice cream products labeled with the statement “0g trans fat.” Carrea v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 10-1044 (N.D. Cal., filed March 11, 2010). Seeking to certify a nationwide class of ice cream purchasers, the plaintiff alleges false advertising under the Lanham Act and violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act and the misleading and deceptive advertising provisions of the state Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks a declaration that the defendants have committed the alleged violations, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, and costs. He also asks the court to order defendants to destroy all misleading and deceptive advertising materials and products. According to the complaint, the plaintiff relied on the alleged misrepresentations to conclude “that the Products were in fact healthy and relied upon…
Nearly 1,000 unnamed plaintiffs, who claim to be family members of individuals purportedly killed by terrorist organizations in Colombia’s Urabá region, have sued Chiquita Brands International, Inc., alleging that throughout the 1990s and at least until 2004, the company “funded, armed, and otherwise supported” these organizations “to produce bananas in an environment free from labor opposition and social disturbances.” Does 1 Through 976 v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., No. 10-404 (D.D.C., filed March 9, 2010). The plaintiffs allege that “[t]he deaths of Plaintiffs’ relatives were a direct, foreseeable, and intended result of Chiquita’s illegal and tortuous support of terrorist organizations.” According to the complaint, the plaintiffs bring their claims anonymously for fear of “violent reprisals, intimidation and death at the hands of the paramilitaries still operating in Colombia.” Their counsel “or his employees have interviewed each of the Doe Plaintiffs and summarized the details of each incident.” The complaint indicates…
A federal court in California has denied a request for preliminary injunction to halt the cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) sugar beets while the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) completes its court-ordered environmental impact statement (EIS) for the crop under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Ctr. for Food Safety v. Schafer, No. 08-00484 (N.D. Cal., decided March 16, 2010). Because the court already determined that APHIS improperly deregulated Monsanto’s Roundup Ready® sugar beet seed without preparing an EIS, the judge noted that the plaintiffs have established the initial element for obtaining injunctive relief, that is, a likelihood of succeeding on the merits. The judge also found that they have demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable harm, given evidence that the GE crop is capable of contaminating conventional and organic corps. Still, he refused to issue a preliminary injunction to immediately halt the sale, planting, cultivation, and harvesting…
A European Court of Justice adviser has determined that Monsanto Co. cannot seek royalties from a company that imported from Argentina soy meal containing residues of Monsanto’s patented gene. Case C-428/08, Monsanto Tech. LLC v. Cefetra BV (Op. of Advocate Gen. Mengozzi, delivered March 9, 2010). Monsanto has no patent on its Roundup Ready® soybeans in Argentina. In 2005 and 2006, the company had shipments of soy meal from Argentina impounded in Amsterdam harbor, and testing showed that it contained some of the seed traits that Monsanto has patented in the European Union (EU). The company then sued the importers for infringement, and a Dutch court hearing the dispute sought guidance from the EU tribunal. Disagreeing with Monsanto, which argued that its EU patent covers the DNA sequence, the adviser opined that under Directive 98/44, “a DNA sequence must be regarded as protected, even as a self-standing product, only where it…
Over the past two years, little has taken place in Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., the putative class action litigation brought in 2002 on behalf of obese and overweight teenagers who alleged that the fast food restaurant is responsible for their weight-related health conditions. On March 10, 2010, the case was reassigned to U.S. District Court Judge Donald Pogue. Since Judge Robert Sweet recused himself in 2008 from the case he had heard through two trips to the U.S. Court of Appeals, the matter has been passed to three different judges. Currently pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., 02-7821 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 30, 2002).
