The Environmental Research Center, which frequently files lawsuits to enforce California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act f 986 (Prop. 65), has sued Clif Bar & Co., alleging that it fails to warn consumers that its protein, energy, electrolyte, and snack bars contain lead, a substance known to the state to cause cancer, birth defects and other reproductive harm. Envtl. Research Ctr. v. Clif Bar & Co., No. 13 32935 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., filed July 18, 2013). The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties of $2,500 per day for each violation of Prop. 65.
Category Archives State Courts
A California court has tentatively determined, following a 10-day bench trial, that the levels of lead in canned or packaged fruit, vegetable and grape drink products, or baby foods, are below the regulatory “safe harbor” exposure level under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) and therefore that the companies which make them are not required to provide Prop. 65 warnings to consumers. Envtl. Law Found. v. Beech-Nut Corp., No. RG11 597384 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., tentative decision entered July 15, 2013). Because few Prop. 65 cases go to trial, the court was faced with a number of questions of first impression, primary among them application of the “naturally occurring” defense. The parties did not dispute the presence of lead in the products or that it has been identified as a known carcinogen and reproductive toxin under Prop. 65. Beech-Nut Corp., the original defendant, was joined at trial by a number of other…
A woman who claims that her 19-year-old son died as a result of consuming at least two 16-oz. cans of Monster Energy® drinks every day for three years has filed a survival and wrongful death action against the company. Morris v. Monster Beverage Corp., RG1368528 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., filed June 25, 2013). According to the complaint, the young man went into cardiac arrest on July 1, 2013, “[w]hile engaged in sexual activity with his girlfriend,” and efforts to revive him were unsuccessful. The autopsy report allegedly attributed his death to “cardiac arrhythmia due to cardiomyopathy.” The plaintiff focuses on the beverage’s caffeine and other ingredients that have purportedly been shown to produce adverse health effects, “including cardiac arrest.” The plaintiff alleges strict liability—design defect, failure to warn—negligent design, manufacture, sale, and failure to warn; concealment, suppression or omission of material facts; breach of implied warranties; punitive damages; and…
A California resident has filed consumer fraud claims on behalf of a putative statewide class against a company that makes fruit juices with “No Sugar Added” statements on the product labels and without a statement that the juice is not a “low calorie” or “calorie reduced” product allegedly in violation of federal regulatory requirements. Cuzakis v. Hansen Beverage Co., No. BC513620 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed June 27, 2013). According to the complaint, the juices are made from fruit juice concentrate and thus cannot be labeled “No Sugar Added,” and with 120 calories per reference serving greater than 30 grams (“about as much as a conventional soft drink”) must include a disclosure that they are not “low calorie.” While the plaintiff alleges that he is a diabetic and must purchase products low in sugar, he does not seek damages for personal injury; rather, he claims he would not…
According to Marler Clark’s Website, the firm has filed 17 lawsuits against Townsend Farms, the Oregon-based company whose frozen berry and pomegranate seed blend products have purportedly been associated with a hepatitis A outbreak that has, to date, sickened more than 100 people in seven states. The firm has filed eight individual suits in the state courts of Arizona, California, Colorado, and Washington, and nine class action suits in those states and in Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon. William Marler and his firm focus on representing “victims of foodborne illness.” See Food Poison Journal, June 21, 2013.
Answering two of the questions certified to it by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, New York’s high court has determined that Starbucks Corp. can, under the state’s Labor Law, distinguish among its employees for purposes of sharing the tips customers leave in a jar on the counter. Barenboim v. Starbucks Corp., Winans v. Starbucks Corp., No. 122 (N.Y., decided June 26, 2013). Starbucks’ policy requires the distribution of pooled tips to baristas and shift supervisors. Both classes of employees spend most of their time performing customer-oriented services, such as taking orders, making and serving beverages and food, operating the cash register, cleaning tables, and stocking products. Both also work part-time and are paid hourly. Shift supervisors have minor supervisory responsibilities. Starbucks does not allow assistant store managers or store managers to receive any of the pooled tips. Both classes work full-time and are eligible for bonuses and benefits, such as…
A California resident who worked at a TGI Fridays in Los Angeles has filed a putative class action on behalf of a statewide class of current and former nonexempt employees, alleging that the restaurant failed to pay them (i) when they showed up for their shifts but were told to go home due to light customer traffic, (ii) for the time they spent in mandatory meetings, and (iii) all the wages and other compensation due upon their discharge, termination or separation “either timely or fully.” Portillo v. TGI Fridays, Inc., No. BC12119 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed June 14, 2013). Alleging causes of action for failure to pay reporting time, waiting time damages, and unfair, unlawful or deceptive business practices, the plaintiff seeks compensatory and liquidated damages, interest, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Women who worked at celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay’s Los Angeles restaurant, The Fat Cow, have filed a putative class action on behalf of all nonexempt employees against the restaurant and his company, alleging they were denied meal and rest breaks, were not compensated for the missed breaks, were not compensated for overtime, were not paid minimum wage, were not provided with timely and accurate wage-and-hour statements, did not promptly receive accrued wages when they left the job, and did not receive all of the gratuities contributed to a tip pool, which they claim the defendants improperly converted. Becerra v. The Fat Cow LLC, No. BC511953 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed June 13, 2013). The named plaintiffs include two former hostesses, a server and a barista. They seek economic damages, injunctive relief, restitution, the imposition of civil penalties, punitive damages, interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.
A salesman has reportedly filed a discrimination lawsuit against his former employer in a New York state court alleging that the employer, who had invited the salesman to return to his job in a frame shop, asked him to leave when he saw how much weight the salesman had gained since leaving the shop in 2008. Bogadanove v. Frame It In Brooklyn, No. ___ (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., filing date n/a). According to the complaint, former employer Jerry Greenberg took one look at Seth Bogadanove on his return and said “Oh my God, what happened to you, you got so fat!” When Bogadanove attempted to explain that medication he was taking caused the weight gain, Greenberg allegedly said, “Oh my God, I am so sorry, I can’t use you, there is no way you can work here at your size. You wouldn’t fit between the aisles.” Bogadanove then purportedly…
According to news sources, the companies that make 5-Hour Energy have filed a complaint in an Oregon state court seeking a declaration that the Oregon Department of Justice (DOJ) is not entitled to what the companies contend are trade secrets, that is, the amounts of ingredients used to make the energy shots. Oregon’s DOJ is apparently part of an executive committee leading a 33-state investigation into Innovation Ventures, LLC and Living Essentials, LLC and has demanded a list of ingredients, including their amounts, to decide whether the companies were justified in claiming that use of the product does not lead to a “crash.” While the companies reportedly provided the DOJ with copies of materials submitted to the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus to support their ad claims in 2007, they redacted the amounts, but not the ingredients, claiming that they are “highly confidential and proprietary…
