A Maine federal court has granted the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) a permanent injunction against Mill Stream Corp., a seafood company that allegedly failed to take measures preventing the formation and growth of Clostridium botulinum, the cause of botulism, or Listeria monocytogenes, the cause of listeriosis. U.S. v. Mill Stream Corp., No. 16-0080 (D. Me., order entered February 12, 2016). The injunction prevents the company and its employees from processing or distributing food produced at Mill Stream’s facilities or by its owner until several conditions have been satisfied, including: (i) retention of an independent laboratory to test for Listeria, (ii) development of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point plans by an independent expert, (iii) implementation of such plans, (iv) completion of additional employee training, and (v) approval to reopen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “The failure to plan for and control the presence of bacteria and neurotoxins…
Category Archives Litigation
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s decision that California cannot enforce its statute regulating the empty space between a product and its packaging against producers of meat and poultry products, finding that the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) preempt the statute. Del Real v. Harris, No. 13-16893 (9th Cir., order entered February 12, 2016). California Attorney General Kamala Harris appealed a district court’s permanent injunction barring enforcement of the slack-fill law against Del Real, which produces heat-and-serve meat and poultry products. The appeals court’s opinion cites precedent interpreting the FMIA and PPIA as creating a uniform national labeling standard. “When the FMIA and PPIA’s express preemption clauses are read in light of Congress’s concern for uniformity and a lesser level of regulation, it is unlikely that Congress intended for the states to be allowed to develop and apply…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against The Wendy’s Co. alleging a failure to sufficiently secure customer payment card data. Torres v. Wendy’s Co., No. 16-0210 (M.D. Fla., filed February 8, 2016). Wendy’s announced in late January 2016 that it had discovered in its processing systems a software program designed to steal credit and debit card information, several weeks after the plaintiff discovered that his debit card had been used in fraudulent purchases totaling almost $600. “Wendy’s could have prevented this Data Breach,” the complaint asserts. “The malicious software used in the Data Breach was more than likely a variant of ‘BlackPOS,’ the identical malware strain that hackers used in last year’s data breach at many other retail establishments. While many retailers, banks and card companies responded to recent breaches by adopting technology that helps make transactions more secure, Wendy’s has acknowledged that it has retained a security consultant to…
A consumer has filed a putative class action against Carrington Tea Co. alleging the company advertises its coconut oil as “a healthy alternative to butter and various cooking oils, despite that coconut oil is actually inherently unhealthy, and a less healthy option to these alternatives.” Boulton v. Carrington Tea Co., No. B609360 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed February 4, 2016). Coconut oil “is approximately 90 percent saturated fat” and “increases the risk of [coronary heart disease] and stroke” as well as other negative health effects, the complaint asserts. Despite these effects, the plaintiff argues, Carrington markets its coconut oil as healthy, and further, “Carrington’s labeling claims are designed to conceal or distract consumers from noticing that its Carrington Farms coconut oils are pure fat” by including the phrase “Healthy Foods for a Healthy Soul” and claiming that “Carrington Farm’s cold-pressed organic extra virgin coconut oil is the most…
A consumer has filed a lawsuit against Kraft Heinz Foods Co. alleging the company sells its grated Parmesan as “100% Grated Parmesan Cheese” despite containing “significant amounts of adulterants and fillers,” including cellulose, or “wood pulp.” Lewin v. Kraft Heinz Foods Co., No. 16-0823 (N.D. Cal., filed February 18, 2016). The lawsuit comes in the wake of a Bloomberg Business article investigating the content of several leading companies’ grated-Parmesan products. The plaintiff alleges that the 3.8 percent of the product composed of cellulose precludes Kraft from labeling its cheese as “100% Grated Parmesan.” For allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and violations of California’s consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages and an injunction. For its investigation, Bloomberg hired a laboratory to test grated-Parmesan products for levels of cellulose, an additive often described as “wood pulp” approved for use in food in amounts up to 4 percent. The tests apparently found higher…
An Alberta court has reportedly approved a settlement agreement in a class action stemming from an E. coli outbreak that resulted in the recall of nearly 4 million pounds of beef in Canada and the United States, amounting to the largest meat recall in Canadian history. Harrison v. XL Foods Inc., No. 1203-14727 (Can. Alta. Q.B., order entered February 17, 2016). Under the settlement agreement, the class is open to consumers in Canada and the United States who either purchased XL Foods Inc.’s beef, thereby suffering an economic injury, or consumed it, causing them to contract an illness. Eligible class members can receive a full refund with proof of purchase or CAN $25 without. See CBC News, February 17, 2016. Issue 595
A California federal court has dismissed a lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. alleging the company falsely advertises its food as free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) despite selling meat and dairy produced from animals fed GMO products as well as soft drinks manufactured with GMO corn syrup. Gallagher v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 15-3952 (N.D. Cal., order entered February 5, 2016). The plaintiff had failed to plausibly plead her allegations, the court found, because she failed to specify which products she purchased. Accordingly, the court granted Chipotle’s motion to dismiss but allowed the plaintiff leave to amend. Additional information about the complaint appears in Issue 577 of this Update. Meanwhile, a jury ordered Chipotle to pay $351,936 in back pay and $255,000 in punitive damages to three female former managers at restaurants near Cincinnati, Ohio, over allegations of gender discrimination. Rogers v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 13-0146…
A California state court has reportedly rejected Pabst Brewing Co.’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Snoop Dogg asserting the rapper is entitled to a portion of the proceeds obtained through the $700 million sale of the company in 2014. Spanky’s Clothing Inc. v. Pabst Brewing Co. LLC, No. BC584365 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cnty., rulings issued February 24, 2016). In the June 2015 complaint, the rapper argued that through a phantom equity clause in his three-year deal to endorse Blast by Colt 45®, a line of fruit-flavored alcohol beverages, he is owed part of the sale price realized by Pabst stockholders. The parties reportedly disputed over whether the court should take judicial notice of the securities sale agreement, but the court found that considering it was inappropriate at this stage of the litigation and denied the motions to dismiss the case. See Law360, February 24, 2016. …
Cumberland Packing Corp. and a group of consumers have reached a settlement agreement in a lawsuit alleging that Cumberland Packing Corp. misrepresents its Stevia in the Raw® sweetener products as all natural despite containing genetically modified organisms. Frohberg v. Cumberland Packing Corp., No. 14-0748 (E.D.N.Y., motion filed February 22, 2016). Under the agreement, Cumberland will pay up to $1,547,000 to reimburse class members with $2.00—or 40 percent of the average purchase price—per purchase of Stevia in the Raw®, to a maximum of $16 per person. In addition, Cumberland will remove “100% Natural” or “All Natural” label claims. Issue 595
A New York state court has reportedly refused to grant the National Restaurant Association’s request for a preliminary injunction to stall the enforcement of New York City’s new requirement that chain restaurants label menu items containing 2,300 mg of salt or more, which is set to take effect March 1, 2016. Nat’l Restaurant Assoc. v. New York City Dept. of Health, No. 654024/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct., New York Cty., order entered February 24, 2016). During the hearing, the court reportedly distinguished the rule from a ban on the ingredient, noting, “It’s not a ban. It’s information. It’s a warning.” Under the rule, chain restaurants must display a logo of a triangle with the image of a salt shaker next to applicable menu items or risk a $200 fine for each infraction. See Bloomberg, February 24, 2016. Issue 595
