In an article for the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse, Shook Partner Frank Cruz-Alvarez and Associate Rachel Canfield discuss the future of class actions in light of the passing of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. “In the specific area of class-action litigation, Justice Scalia repeatedly thwarted the plaintiffs’ bar’s efforts to encourage liberal interpretation of Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and broadly applied the preemptive effect of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA),” they write. “His death and vacancy have generated much speculation about how the post-Scalia high court will address class actions and other related cases in the terms ahead. Cruz-Alvarez and Canfield provide an overview of Scalia-authored opinions in class action appeals and discuss immediate effects of his death on the litigation environment, noting that one company candidly announced it would not seek certiorari in an antitrust class action because of Scalia’s absence from the bench. Further, they…
Category Archives Litigation
A California resident has filed a putative class action alleging Quaker Oats Co. mislabels its instant oatmeal as containing maple syrup despite containing no syrup or maple sugar. Eisenlord v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 16-1442 (C.D. Cal., filed March 1, 2016). Citing a letter from the Vermont Maple Sugar Makers’ Association to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the complaint asserts that adding maple sugar to a product can allow a company to charge a premium price. The plaintiff argues that he relied on the name of the product and a prominent image of maple syrup on the packaging to believe that the oatmeal contained maple syrup, and had he known “that the product did not contain maple syrup or maple sugar as an ingredient, he would not have purchased it.” For allegations of fraudulent inducement and violations of California’s consumer-protection statute, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, an injunction…
Experience Hendrix has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Tiger Paw Distributors, Private Label Distillery and Leon Hendrix, Jimi’s brother, for selling an alcohol product called “Purple Haze Liqueur.” Experience Hendrix v. Tiger Paw Distrib., No. 16-0642 (N.D. Ga., filed February 29, 2016). Experience Hendrix, established by Jimi’s father and now owned by Jimi’s sister and cousin, alleges that Leon and his company are selling Purple Haze Liqueur and promoting it with Jimi’s image, which Experience Hendrix owns. According to the complaint, Leon was previously enjoined from selling Jimi Hendrix Electric Vodka, sold in a purple bottle, after 2007 trademark litigation. The company argues that it hold copyright protection for several of Jimi’s songs, including “Purple Haze” and “Voodoo Child (Slight Return).” In addition, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office previously refused to grant trademark rights to Tiger Paw for marks related to Jimi Hendrix because they suggested a false connection to…
The founder of Midamar, an export company charged with fraud for sending “halal” meat to Malaysia that failed to meet halal slaughtering standards, has reportedly been sentenced to two years in federal prison and ordered to pay $60,000 in fines and $184,983 in disgorgement. Midamar was fined $20,000 and ordered to forfeit $600,000. A U.S. Department of Agriculture investigation revealed that William Aossey, Jr. instructed his employees at Midamar to change the application forms to indicate the meat had been produced at a Malaysia-approved facility instead of Midamar’s unapproved supplier. Aossey was convicted of making false statements on export applications, selling misbranded meat and committing wire and mail fraud in July 2015. The court cited Aossey’s advanced age and lack of criminal history to lower his sentence from the guideline sentencing range of 87-108 months. Aossey’s sons, Jalel and Yahya, have also been convicted of similar charges and will be…
Two cheese companies and an executive from a third company have pleaded guilty to charges relating to the manufacture and sale of adulterated and misbranded Parmesan cheese products. The companies, Universal Cheese & Drying, Inc. and International Packing, LLC, were charged with conspiracy to introduce misbranded cheese products into interstate commerce and to commit money laundering, while Michelle Myrter, an executive at Castle Cheese Co., pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of aiding and abetting the introduction of misbranded cheese. “The Department of Justice prosecutes people and companies who introduce adulterated or misbranded food into interstate commerce,” U.S. Attorney David Hickton said in a February 26, 2016, press release. “In this case, the fraud was perpetrated on consumers who purchased Parmesan and Romano cheeses that were inferior to what they believed they were buying.” Additional details about the Castle case and the ensuing media attention about the cellulose content in…
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has reportedly affirmed a ruling that Spanish citrus growers must label their fruits when they have used chemicals or preservatives in post-harvest processing. Spain challenged the European Commission’s (EC’s) power to enact the rule, arguing the U.N. Economic Commission for Europe had set voluntary standards only. The lower court noted that even though the EC must consider U.N. standards, it is not required to adopt those guidelines, reasoning that the ECJ reportedly echoed in its ruling. Spain also argued that the rule created an unconstitutional distinction between citrus growers and growers of other fruit, but the lower court found that citrus fruit is often subjected to higher levels of chemical processing and that citrus peels are used differently than the peels of other fruits and vegetables because they are often added to food for additional flavor. See Wall Street Journal, March 3, 2016. …
A New York federal court has dismissed a putative class action alleging Whole Foods Market Group overcharged its customers for some prepackaged foods, finding that the plaintiffs failed to specify any particular transactions in which the grocer overcharged them. In re Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc. Overcharging Litig., No. 15-5838 (S.D.N.Y., order entered March 1, 2016). The complaint was filed after the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) announced the results of its investigation into “systemic overcharging” at Whole Foods stores across the city. The plaintiffs alleged that they “regularly purchased”—“one or two times per month”—pre-packaged products from Whole Foods that the DCA identified in its press release, including cheese, cupcakes and chicken fingers. The court took issue with the plaintiffs’ reliance on the DCA press release, finding that its “statements fall very far short of reporting an investigative finding of ubiquitous, systematic over-weighting at Whole Foods’ New…
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that a class of manufacturing-plant workers at Hormel Food Corp. should be paid for the time they need to change into and out of their required clothes and equipment. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1473 v. Hormel Food. Corp., No. 2014-AP-1880 (Wis., order entered March 1, 2016). The court found that under Wisconsin regulations, Hormel must compensate its employees for 5.7 minutes per day. The ruling affirms a circuit court decision finding that “the employees’ donning and doffing clothing and equipment at the beginning and end of the day brought Hormel into compliance with federal food and safety regulations and was integral and indispensable to sanitation and safety in the employees’ principal work activities, namely food production.” Issue 596
The day before the rule was set to take effect on March 1, 2016, a New York state appeals court reportedly granted an emergency stay on enforcement of a municipal regulation requiring chain restaurants to feature salt-warning icons on menus next to items containing 2,300 milligrams or more of sodium. A justice in the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court granted the emergency measure, and a panel from that court will next decide whether to grant a preliminary injunction on enforcement followed by a full appeal of the case. See Bloomberg Business, February 29, 2016. Issue 596
A California federal court has rejected a May 2015 settlement agreement reached by StarKist Co. and a class of consumers who alleged the company underfilled its cans of tuna. Hendricks v. StarKist Co., No. 13-0729 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 19, 2016). The court identified two issues with the settlement: (i) the notice sent to class members did not notify the class of the amended release of future claims, so the settlement notice was inadequate; and (ii) the scope of the original and amended releases violates the identical factual predicate rule. Specifically, the release was too broad because it released StarKist from claims relating to any purchase of StarKist products rather than limiting it to a release from claims related to the purchase of underfilled StarKist tuna products. Details about the settlement agreement appear in Issue 566 of this Update. Issue 595
