Putative class claims have been filed in a California federal court against Old Mother Hubbard, Inc. and Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. alleging fraud in the sale of Wellness pet food. Barney v. Old Mother Hubbard, Inc., No. 09-06194 (C.D. Cal., filed August 25, 2009). According to a news source, the complaint contends that the pet food, which is more expensive than other brands, is advertised as containing only “human grade” meat, while it actually contains feathers, viscera, skin, and bones. The plaintiffs, who have invoked the court’s diversity jurisdiction, seek punitive damages and an injunction to stop ads which allegedly claim that the pet food ingredients are “of the same quality you would feed to your own family.” See Courthouse News Service, August 31, 2009.
Category Archives Litigation
Putative class claims have been filed in federal court in Illinois against Denny’s Corp., alleging that the company defrauded consumers by misrepresenting or omitting information about the “excessive amount of sodium—the deadliest ingredient in the food supply—present in its meals.” Ciszewski v. Denny’s Corp., No. 09-5355 (N.D. Ill, filed August 29, 2009). Information about similar litigation filed against the company in a New Jersey state court appears in issue 312 of this Update. The named plaintiff alleges that he has high blood pressure and takes medication for the condition. While he has apparently been advised to limit his salt consumption, he purportedly eats at Denny’s “from time to time and with frequency,” and eats the company’s “Moons Over My Hammy,” “SuperBird Sandwich,” and “Meat Lover’s Scramble,” which allegedly contain more than 3,200 mg, 2,600 mg and 5,600 mg of sodium, respectively. The plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class of…
Kentucky and Texas residents have filed a putative class action in federal court against SIGG Switzerland (USA), Inc. claiming that the company misrepresented that its aluminum reusable bottles were free of bisphenol A (BPA). Johnson v. SIGG Switzerland (USA), Inc., 09-669 (W.D. Ky., filed August 28, 2009). The complaint cites actions the company’s CEO took in recent years to counter claims that the bottle’s resin liner contained BPA, including issuing press releases asserting that the products had no BPA, while actually working to reformulate the liner to rid it of the chemical. Seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers “who purchased SIGG bottles that contained BPA,” the named plaintiffs allege breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, and violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. They seek a class certification order; compensatory, punitive and statutory damages; restitution and disgorgement of profits; attorney’s fees and costs; prejudgment interest; and…
A California trial court has determined that the insurer of the nation’s largest seller of bagged fresh spinach must pay for its losses from the 2006 nationwide E. coli outbreak that led to a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory against eating any fresh spinach. Fresh Express, Inc. v. Beazley Syndicate 2623/623 at Lloyd’s, No. M88545 (Cal. Super. Ct., Monterey Cty., decided August 18, 2009). The outbreak was ultimately traced to a different producer, and the insurer denied coverage. Following a bench trial, the court determined that (i) the produce company introduced sufficient evidence to establish that it committed “errors” within the policy’s meaning by failing, before purchasing spinach, to conduct a food safety audit of the field where it was grown to verify that the growers had complied with good agricultural practices; (ii) this verification of good practices compliance “was an integral and inseparable part of its safe manufacturing practices”;…
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed lawsuits against companies that make, market or supply açai berry products, touted as weight loss dietary supplements, charging that they are scamming consumers with aggressive marketing campaigns, prematurely billing their credit cards, not always supplying the product ordered, and making it nearly impossible to cancel once a “free trial” has been implemented. The product ads purportedly feature images of celebrities such as Rachel Ray, Oprah Winfrey, Mehmet Oz, M.D., Gwyeth Paltrow or Courtney Love, despite their alleged lack of a promotional contract with the companies. The complaints seek injunctive relief, restitution and civil penalties.
A North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) tribunal has reportedly awarded $58 million in damages to Corn Products International’s Mexican affiliate after finding that Mexico imposed discriminatory taxes on beverages sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). The tribunal determined in January 2008 that Mexico had breached its NAFTA obligations to favor its domestic sugar industry by requiring a 20 percent tax on HFCS-sweetened beverages. According to a news source, the tax was also imposed in retaliation for U.S. curbs on surplus Mexican sugar imports in the 1990s, an anti-dumping practice declared illegal by the World Trade Organization. See FoodNavigator-USA.com, August 29, 2009.
In the wake of lawsuits filed by the manufacturer of a pomegranate-juice based product line, consumers have now begun seeking damages against the same defendants for alleged deception and fraud in the sale of pomegranate juice purportedly containing “little or no pomegranate juice.” Burcham v. Welch Foods, Inc., No. 09-05946 (C.D. Cal., filed August 14, 2009). Additional information about the lawsuits filed by POM Wonderful LLC against Welch Foods, Inc. and Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. appears in issues 290 and 313 of this Update. According to plaintiff Maryam Burcham, seeking damages for herself and a class of “All persons residing in California who purchased Welch’s ‘White Grape Pomegranate Juice,”’ the defendant’s product “purports to combine white grape and pomegranate into a single juice product. However, the truth is that the main ingredients in Defendant’s White Grape Pomegranate Juice are actually cheap white grape and apple juice, instead of pomegranate juice,…
A federal court in New York has decided to allow most parts of a new state bottle-deposit law to take effect, lifting a injunction that would have delayed implementation until April 2010. Int’l Bottled Water Ass’n v. Paterson, No. 09-4672 (S.D.N.Y., decided August 13, 2009). Additional details about the litigation challenging the law’s constitutionality appear in issue 305 of this Update. The court’s decision overturns an order entered in late May 2009 granting injunctive relief. According to a news source, the ruling means that soft drink and beer makers must now give the state 80 percent of the unclaimed 5-cent deposits, and store and redemption handling fees will increase from 2 cents to 3.5 cents per container. Water companies making products containing flavored water, vitamin water and artificial sweeteners have apparently been given until October 22 to comply with the law, unless they can prove compliance is impossible. They did…
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that federal food labeling law does not preempt the state law-based claims filed by a consumer who challenged Snapple’s designation of beverages containing high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as “natural.” Holk v. Snapple Beverage Corp., No. 08-3060 (3d Cir., decided August 12, 2009). The appeals court reversed a lower court ruling dismissing the claims on the basis of implied preemption. The complaint, originally filed in state court, but removed to federal court in 2007 under the Class Action Fairness Act, initially asserted that Snapple products were not “All Natural” because they contained HFCS; they were not “Made from the Best Stuff on Earth”; and Snapple falsely labeled some beverages, naming them after fruit-juice varieties that were not actually in the beverages. The plaintiff alleged unjust enrichment and common law restitution, breach of express and implied warranties and violations of the New Jersey…
A California state judge has reportedly issued a tentative ruling on the styrene industry’s request to enjoin Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) regulators from listing styrene as a chemical known to the state to cause cancer. Styrene Info. & Research Ctr. v. OEHHA, No. 09-53089 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., decided August 12, 2009). Further details about the litigation appear in issue 313 of this Update. According to a news source, Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang found no “known” evidence that styrene is a carcinogen and that the designation would likely have a devastating and stigmatizing effect on the product’s use. Widely used in food packaging, styrene plastics are apparently crucial to the transportation and sale of strawberries, raspberries and blueberries, state industries worth $1.6 billion. California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has proposed listing styrene as a Prop. 65 substance, which would require public warnings, based on “possibly…
