Chef Kyle Connaughton, who has “been employed by some of the most prestigious restaurants in the world,” co-authored books and co presented on United Kingdom (U.K.) TV programs, has sued Chipotle Mexican Grill and its CEO, claiming that he was hired to developed a ramen-noodle fast-food restaurant concept that was doomed to fail because someone else had already created the concept in the context of a confidential business deal with Chipotle that did not come to fruition. Connaughton v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 155106/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cty., filed June 3, 2013). Connaughton allegedly developed the business plan and concept from 2010-2012 in close collaboration with Chipotle employees. Connaughton later learned on meeting with Momofuku’s Noodle Bar chief marketing officer that Momofuku would sue Chipotle when its ramen restaurant opened because owner David Chang had developed the same concept for Chipotle in 2008. Because Chang could not come to terms…
Category Archives State Courts
A California resident has filed a strict liability lawsuit against a food retailer and the Oregon-based company that produced a frozen organic fruit mix allegedly implicated in a widespread Hepatitis A outbreak. Brackenridge v. Townsend Farms Corp., No. BC510633 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed June 3, 2013). According to the complaint, Lynda Brackenridge contracted the disease after purchasing the frozen fruit blend and remains hospitalized in isolation and in guarded condition. Seeking past and future economic and non-economic damages in excess of $25,000, court costs and interest, the plaintiff also alleges negligence and breach of implied warranties.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has filed a consumer-fraud lawsuit on behalf of the people of the state of California against Monster Beverage just one week after the company sued Herrera to halt his investigation into company advertising practices and demands. People v. Monster Beverage Corp., No. CGC-13-531161 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., filed May 6, 2013). According to Herrera’s press release, Monster Beverage’s preemptive suit constituted “‘forum shopping’ and a bid to win the race to the courthouse.” Details about Monster Energy’s lawsuit appear in Issue 482 of this Update. The new lawsuit alleges that the company “aggressively markets” its energy drink products to children and teenagers, fails to adequately warn consumers about the purported risks of consuming such products, and illegally sold its beverages until earlier this year as a dietary supplement. According to the complaint, product labels claim that three 16-ounce cans can be safely…
A number of companies that make cereals and other products containing acrylamide, a chemical believed to be a byproduct of the Maillard reaction and found in baked or fried starchy foods, have been sued under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65) for failing to provide warnings to consumers. RBC Four Co. LLC v. Post Foods, LLC, No. BC507122 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed April 30, 2013). According to the plaintiff, the chemical was added to the Prop. 65 list as a substance known to the state to cause cancer in January 1990 and became subject to the law’s warning requirements 20 months later. The complaint also notes that the current safe-harbor acrylamide-intake level is .2 μg/day and that the defendants’ products contain acrylamide levels that exceed maximum allowable dose levels “for chemicals causing reproductive toxicity with require warnings under Proposition 65.” Alleging that…
California’s attorney general (AG) has filed a suit against a number of candy manufacturers and grocery retailers, alleging that they have violated Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) by failing to label “ginger candies and other food products containing ginger” and/or “plum candies and other products containing plums,” which the AG claims contain lead, a substance known to the state “to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm.” People v. Dakota Bros., No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., filed April 30, 2013). Under Prop. 65, “businesses must provide a ‘clear and reasonable warning’ before exposing individuals to lead,” according to the complaint, and the defendants have allegedly not provided such warnings. The AG seeks civil penalties, not to exceed $2,500 per day for each violation, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and costs.
According to a news source, a Michigan state court has approved a settlement of claims that a McDonald’s franchisee falsely advertised some of its chicken products as halal, or prepared in accordance with Muslim dietary restrictions. Ahmed v. Finley’s Mgmt. Co., No. 11-014559-CZ (Mich. Cir. Ct., Wayne Cty., settlement approved April 17, 2013). The settlement was approved despite objections that the $700,000 settlement fund would be unfairly distributed, for the most part, to two charities without compensating those harmed by the purported fraud. Additional information about the litigation appears in issues 468, 471, 473, and 475 of this Update. The attorney who was a member of the class, posted objections to the settlement on his Facebook® page and successfully defeated a gag order imposed by the court has reportedly indicated that he does not plan to appeal after plaintiffs’ counsel assured him that some of their $233,000 in fees would…
A divided Illinois appeals court has determined that Jimmy John’s Enterprises and one of its franchisees must continue to defend four of seven claims in a personal injury suit arising from a motor vehicle accident involving one of its delivery drivers. Reynolds v. Jimmy John’s Enters., LLC, No. 4-12-139 (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist., decided April 2, 2013). The plaintiff, who was riding a motorcycle when the accident occurred and purportedly sustained permanently disabling injuries, alleged that the driver was negligently supervised and trained and thus made an illegal turn into his path in an effort to comply with the food company’s promise of “freaky fast” food delivery, that is, that “deliveries will be made within 15 minutes of receiving the sandwich order.” Finding that the defendants did not properly bring their motion to dismiss under the state’s procedural rules, the court majority found that the trial court erred in…
An Ohio appeals court has determined that Ohio legislators improperly enacted an appropriations bill rider that was intended to preempt a Cleveland ordinance prohibiting the use of “industrially produced trans fat” in foods prepared by retail food establishments and food service operations, such as fast-food restaurants, unless the foods were served “in a manufacturer’s original sealed package.” City of Cleveland v. Ohio, No. 98616 (Ohio Ct. App., 8th App. Dist., Cuyahoga Cty., decided March 28, 2013). Additional information about Cleveland’s lawsuit challenging the state law appears in Issue 422 of this Update. The court agreed with the city that the state law was an unconstitutional attempt to preempt the city from exercising its home rule powers under the state constitution and that the provisions, enacted as amendments to a state appropriations bill, violated the constitution’s one subject rule. In determining that the appropriations bill amendment was not a “general law,” the…
SHB’s Public Policy Group recently contributed to a favorable outcome for animal medicine manufacturers in the Supreme Court of Texas, which ruled in Strickland v. Medlen that emotion-based damages, including loss of companionship and sentimental damages, are not permitted in pet injury claims in Texas. Presenting on behalf of amici during oral argument, SHB Partner Victor Schwartz highlighted the public policy issues at stake after a lower appellate court in Texas broke with the majority of courts nationally by allowing broad, new emotion-based damages for pet deaths in a November 2011 ruling. SHB Partner Phil Goldberg authored the amici brief on behalf of the Animal Health Institute and several animal health organizations, developed other amici and helped prepare defense counsel on key issues, while Partner Manuel Lopez served as local counsel on the SHB amici brief and provided expertise on the appellate process. In its ruling, the court ultimately recognized that finding…
A Connecticut-based law firm has filed Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) lawsuits against three companies that make food extracts and flavorings, alleging that they fail to disclose the presence of 4-Methylimidazole (4-MEI), a substance known to California to cause cancer. Leeman v. Adams Extract & Spice Co., LLC, No. 13-529493; Leeman v. McCormick & Co., Inc., No. 13-529494; Leeman v. Farmer Bros. Co., No. 13 529495 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., filed March 13, 2013). Named plaintiff Whitney Leeman claims to hold a doctorate in environmental engineering and seeks “to promote awareness of exposures to toxic chemicals in products sold in California.” She provided 60-day notices of violation to the companies in December 2012 concerning their alleged failure to warn consumers about 4-MEI exposure. The products specifically named in the complaints are Adams’ “Extract Maple Imitation Maple Flavor,” McCormick’s “Culinary Imitation Maple Flavor” and “Culinary Caramel Color,” and Farmer’s “Sierra Brand…
