A federal court in Washington has reportedly denied a feedlot company’s request to invalidate or delay implementation of the country-of-origin labeling (COOL) regulations adopted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2008. Easterday Ranches, Inc. v. USDA, No. __ (E.D. Wash., decided February 5, 2010). According to news sources, the company argued that the COOL regulations, which do not allow beef imported from Canada or Mexico and slaughtered in the United States to be labeled as a U.S. product, conflicted with U.S. Treasury Department rules, would raise its recordkeeping and operational costs, and deter packers from paying fair prices for Canadian cattle. The Treasury rules apparently provide that beef is deemed a U.S. product if it undergoes “substantial transformation,” e.g., slaughter, within this country. The court refused to postpone USDA’s rules and further declined to order the agency to create an exception to COOL allowing cattle imported from Canada and…
Category Archives Litigation
A putative class action has been filed in a federal court in Louisiana against CVS Caremark Corp., alleging that the company “has a long history of selling out-of-date medications, baby formula, and food.” Cooper v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 10-331 (E.D. La., filed February 5, 2010). The named plaintiff, who claims she purchased an expired over-the-counter (OTC) medication from a CVS store, seeks to certify a nationwide class of persons who likewise purchased expired products and asks the court for injunctive relief and compensatory damages. The complaint alleges that the expired OTC medications are “adulterated” under Food and Drug Administration guidelines and that their sale violates the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The plaintiff also claims that expired OTC drugs, food and baby formula “are unmerchantable and unfit for ordinary use.”
A U.S. magistrate judge has sentenced to three years of probation the couple who owned the company that imported melamine-tainted pet food ingredients into the United States from China. Sally Qing Miller, a Chinese national, and her husband, Stephen Miller, were also barred from importing pet food ingredients and were each ordered to pay a $5,000 fine. According to a press release, no further restitution was required “in light of a $24 million settlement in a related civil suit reached in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.” Their company, ChemNutra, Inc. was ordered to pay a $25,000 fine. The Food and Drug Administration has reportedly estimated that 1,950 cats and 2,200 dogs died after eating the contaminated food in 2007. Sally Miller was quoted as saying, “I’m really, really sorry this happened. I hope through this tragic, unfortunate event, the whole industry can learn from us, from…
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a district court’s decision not to allow a flavoring company to file cross claims in litigation between an insurance carrier and the company that supplied vanilla beans tainted with mercury to the flavoring company. The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Dammann & Co., Inc., No. 09-1225 (3d Cir., decided February 5, 2010). The flavoring company sought to hold the vanilla bean supplier liable under contract, tort and indemnification theories, and the district court held that the proposed cross claims were time-barred or failed to state a claim. The Third Circuit agreed. The flavoring company’s request to file cross claims occurred more than four years after it received the vanilla beans, and its breach of warranty claims were thus untimely under the Uniform Commercial Code. Because New Jersey law applied to the case, the appeals court then discussed at length why it believed New…
According to a news source, some 120 of those purportedly sickened by Salmonella-contaminated peanut butter and their attorneys should soon begin receiving a share of a $12 million Hartford Insurance Co. policy held by the Peanut Corp. of America. Those sharing the settlement filed claims by October 31, 2009, as part of the company’s bankruptcy proceeding. The outbreak reportedly took the lives of nine people and sickened 700 who apparently ate peanuts and peanut paste traced to a company plant in Blakely, Georgia. See The Columbus Dispatch, February 2, 2010.
A number of microwave popcorn workers and their spouses have reportedly filed a complaint against a flavoring company in a federal court in Illinois, alleging personal injuries, loss of consortium and wrongful death from exposure to the butter flavoring diacetyl. Barker v. Int’l Flavors & Fragrances, Inc., No. 10-48 (S.D. Ill., filed January 21, 2010). The workers were apparently employed by AgriLink, a microwave popcorn manufacturer; they claim that diacetyl exposure can cause the lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans. According to the complaint, the defendant misrepresented the chemical’s safety and hid research on its risks from users. The plaintiffs apparently allege negligence and products liability and are seeking compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and costs. See Mealey’s Food Liability, February 2, 2010.
A New Jersey resident has reportedly filed a putative class action against General Mills, Inc., alleging that the company’s claims about the beneficial digestive health benefits of its Yo-Plus® yogurt products are false and misleading. Amin v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-305 (D.N.J., filed January 19, 2010). According to a news source, the plaintiff alleges that the company’s own studies refute many of its health claims; he also cites insufficient-evidence findings by the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. The plaintiff seeks certification of a class of New Jersey residents who purchased the product since they were first sold in the state and alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and breach of express warranty. See Mealey’s Food Liability, February 2, 2010. In issue 333 of this Update, we discussed the decision of a federal court in Florida to certify a class action raising the…
Two California residents have filed a false advertising complaint on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of consumers against The Quaker Oats Co., alleging that the company falsely labels Chewy Granola Bars® as “0g trans fat” when they actually contain “dangerous amounts of artificial trans fat, a toxic product that causes cancer, diabetes, and heart disease, and is banned in an increasing number of United States and foreign jurisdictions.” Chacanaca v. The Quaker Oats Co., No. 10-502 (N.D. Cal., filed February 3, 2010). Represented by the same counsel and using the same graphics and allegations about natural and trans fats as a complaint filed a few days earlier against Kellogg involving its Nutri-Grain® bars, the plaintiffs allege violations of the Lanham Act, California’s statutory and common laws of unfair competition, and the California False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. They seek to enjoin the alleged false marketing and…
Two California residents have filed putative class claims against the Kellogg Co. in a California federal court, alleging that the company misleads consumers by making health claims for its Nutri-Grain® bars and promoting some of its Keebler cookie products as containing 0 grams of trans fat. Higginbotham v. Kellogg Co., No. 10-255 (S.D. Cal., filed February 1, 2010). According to the complaint, which provides detailed information about the differences between natural saturated fats and artificial trans fat, including that the artificial fat “causes cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer,” the trans fat content of Kellogg’s products renders them “dangerous and unfit for human consumption.” The plaintiffs seek to certify a class of “All persons who purchased, on or after January 1, 2000, one or more Kellogg products containing artificial trans fat for their own use rather than resale or distribution.” They allege false advertising under the Lanham Act, violations…
A federal court in California has denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss in a putative class action alleging false and misleading advertising for defendant’s “Tropicana Pure 100% Juice Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 Juices from Concentrate with other Natural Flavors.” Zupnik v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., No. 09-6130 (C.D. Cal., decided February 1, 2010). Plaintiffs allege that the product label, which emphasizes the pomegranate and blueberry components of the product by image and size of type constitutes false or misleading advertising in violation of several state statutes. According to the complaint, consumers are misled into believing the juice is primarily pomegranate and blueberry juice when it is, in fact, mostly pear juice. Tropicana argued that the plaintiff lacked standing, her claims were expressly preempted by federal law, and they were not pleaded with particularity. The court disagreed, finding that because the plaintiff claimed she did not get what she paid…
