According to a press report, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has refused the request of Whole Foods Market, Inc. that the court reconsider, en banc, a July 2008 decision by a three-judge appellate court panel reviving the Federal Trade Commission’s antitrust challenge to the company’s merger with Wild Oats Markets, Inc. More information about the panel’s divided ruling appears in issue 269 of this Update. The commission will conduct administrative hearings on the merger in February 2009. While the merger was completed in August 2007, the commission could apparently try to stop further integration of the companies’ operations or require Whole Foods to sell some properties. In a statement, Whole Foods reportedly indicated its intent to vigorously defend the administrative proceedings, “even though we believe it is an unfair process and a violation of the company’s due process rights.” See Dow Jones Newswires, November 21, 2008. Meanwhile, a Chicago…
Category Archives Litigation
Strict liability and breach of warranty claims filed in an Ohio state court in July 2008 after an E. coli outbreak linked to ground beef sold by Nebraska Beef sickened at least 19 in that state have been removed to federal court. Schlagel v. Nebraska Beef, Ltd., No. 08-01091 (S.D. Ohio, removed November 17, 2008). The named plaintiff of this putative class action is a 4-year-old girl, who allegedly “suffered serious physical and emotional injuries.” The proposed class would include “All Ohio claimants who have suffered personal injury caused by Nebraska Beef’s contaminated E. Coli 0157:H7 meat.” The contamination led to the recall of more than 5 million pounds of meat. The company has reportedly denied the allegations and challenges the suitability of the case for class treatment. See Product Liability Law 360, November 18, 2008.
According to a news source, the lawsuit instituted by the Sugar Association to challenge the marketing of the artificial sweetener Splenda® as “made from sugar so it tastes like sugar” has been resolved through a confidential settlement agreement. The trade organization alleged that McNeil Nutritionals’ product promotion deliberately misinformed consumers who would be led to believe that Splenda® contained sugar. A Sugar Association spokesperson reportedly said, “The sugar industry is very satisfied with the settlement and with what they believe will be the outcome of the settlement in terms of marketing of the product.” According to a McNeil spokesperson, the tag line is still in use. See Foodnavigator-usa.com, November 18, 2008.
A multidistrict litigation (MDL) court in New Jersey has entered an order approving the settlement of claims that pet food contaminated with melamine and cyanuric acid sickened and killed thousands of cats and dogs in the United States. In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1950 (D.N.J., filed November 18, 2008). In its 65-page opinion, the court certified the class for settlement purposes and approved an award of $24 million to the plaintiffs and nearly $6.4 million in attorney’s fees. The court also denied a motion to intervene, overruled several objections and granted a motion to strike a separate motion for attorney’s fees. Pet owners will be eligible for documented economic damages, such as veterinary bills, cremation, burial services, costs of new pets, and healthy pet screenings. Claims without documentation will be paid up to a maximum of $900 for each claimant. If the claims exceed the available funds,…
With more than 54,000 Chinese children sickened by the melamine contamination of milk and infant formula products in recent months and the government stalling over compensation of their families, some 15 lawyers have reportedly decided to file the claims of nearly 100 families in a single lawsuit against the Shijiazhuang Sanlu Group Co. The lawyers have not apparently set a date for its filing and intend to hold discussions with the dairy company at the heart of the alleged scandal. According to a news source, they are hoping to force a settlement by grouping a large number of claims. China’s government has ordered hospitals to order free treatment for the sick infants, but not all costs have been covered, and at least a dozen individual cases have already been filed. These suits are in a “legal limbo” because the courts have neither accepted nor refused them. See Associated Press, November…
The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and the Canadian Pork Council, representing some 100,000 producers, are reportedly calling on their government to bring legal challenges under the North American Free Trade Agreement and WTO rules to the new country-of-origin labeling (COOL) law that took effect in the United States on October 1, 2008. According to the beef and pork producers, the law has begun shutting their livestock out of U.S. markets, where domestic and foreign animals must now be segregated in feedlots and packing plants. Origination documentation and disease-free tags are also apparently adding to producer costs. The Canadian producers claim that some companies are refusing to import Canadian cattle altogether and others will slaughter them only on certain days, a situation that threatens to cost the Canadian producers some $800 million annually. In a letter to Canada’s prime minister, the Cattlemen’s president reportedly said, “Our preliminary estimate is that COOL is reducing…
The Office of U.S. Trade Representative has issued a request for comments about potential alternative products imported from the European Union (EU) that are under consideration for the imposition of increased duties. The action arises from an ongoing dispute with the EU over its refusal to allow imports of U.S. meat and meat products produced from animals treated with artificial growth hormones. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, “The [World Trade Organization] found over 10 years ago that the EU’s ban on U.S. beef was not supported by science and was thus inconsistent with WTO rules. When the EU failed to bring its measures into compliance with its WTO obligations, the United States imposed tariffs on certain imports from the EU, as authorized by the WTO. Since that time, we have been trying to resolve this dispute with the EU without changing the composition of tariffs. It is now time…
According to a news source, nine families whose babies developed kidney problems allegedly as a result of drinking milk tainted with melamine have filed individual lawsuits against the Sanlu Group, one of China’s largest milk companies. Each child developed kidney stones, and six reportedly remain hospitalized. The families are seeking the equivalent of US$2,000 for each child as compensation. Even though the families live in different provinces, the lawsuits were all filed in the northern city of Shijiazhuang, where the company is based. No judge has yet agreed to hear any of the milk cases in court, and a number of lawyers have apparently been pressured by government officials not to represent families seeking damages. See The New York Times, October 31, 2008.
A California appeals court has determined that a misreading of prior case law led a trial court judge to erroneously overturn a jury verdict in favor of a plaintiff who alleged that she was made ill from exposure to campylobacter at defendant’s restaurant. Sarti v. Salt Creek Ltd., No. G037818 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th App. Dist., Div. 3, decided October 27, 2008). So ruling, the court reinstated $725,000 in economic damages and $2.5 million in noneconomic damages and allowed the plaintiff to recover her costs on appeal. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, after determining, under a heightened causation standard, that reasonable inferences alone cannot prove a food poisoning case. The appeals court exhaustively analyzes the court’s reasoning in Minder v. Cielito Lindo Restaurant, 67 Cal.App.3d 1003 (1977), and shows how the court in that case misread prior case law “to preclude the use…
A rancher in eastern Washington has reportedly sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in federal court, seeking changes to its country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rules for beef products. According to a news source, Easterday Ranches claims that the regulations are adding to costs for the U.S. beef industry and consumers. Apparently, cattle born in other countries must be segregated from domestic animals and cannot be slaughtered on the same day; extensive records must be kept and buyers must keep the meat separate in processing plants. Easterday’s president reportedly claims that commercial buyers are paying far less per head for Canadian or Mexican cattle, and there is no premium price being paid for U.S. cattle. He also contends that the regulations do nothing for food safety and contradict the North American Free Trade Act. See Tri-City Herald and meatingplace.com, October 28, 2008.
