A California court has reportedly denied a motion to certify a class of Hard Rock Café employees who allege that the restaurant chain wrongly classified them as exempt employees and then forced them to assume the tasks of non-exempt employees without paying them overtime or allowing them to take meal periods and rest breaks, and otherwise provided inaccurate wage statements. In re Hard Rock Café Wage & Hour Cases, No. JCCP 4549 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., decided October 3, 2012). According to the restaurant chain’s counsel, the court determined that the putative class of kitchen managers lacked numerosity, the identity and number of class members could not be ascertained, and the named representative could not adequately represent the class. The court also apparently found that individual analysis of each employee’s work activities would be required to decide whether they had been properly classified as exempt. Counsel for named plaintiff…
Category Archives State Courts
The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) has filed a putative class action against a large-scale, California-based egg producer alleging that it falsely represents that the eggs are laid by hens “raised in wide open spaces in Sonoma Valley.” ALDF v. Judy’s Family Farm Organic Eggs, No. ___ (Cal. Super. Ct., filed October 1, 2012). According to ALDF, the hens are actually “crammed in covered sheds with no outdoor access.” The animal rights group alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The organization cites Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, which discussed the defendant and its parent company, also named in the suit, as follows: “Who could begrudge a farmer named Judy $3.49 for a dozen organic eggs she presumably has to get up at dawn each morning to gather? Just how big and sophisticated an operation Petaluma Eggs really is I was never able to…
Beef Products Inc. (BPI) has filed a defamation lawsuit against ABC News, Diane Sawyer and two former U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) employees, among others, claiming that they “knowingly and intentionally published nearly 200 false and disparaging statements regarding the company and its product, lean finely textured beef (LFTB).” Beef Prods. Inc. v. ABC, Inc., No. ___ (Cir. Ct., Union Cty., S. Dak., filed September 13, 2012). The company is seeking $1.2 billion in damages. At one time, LFTB was used in some 70 percent of ground beef; it is made from fatty scraps remaining after cattle carcasses are cut into steaks and roasts. Bits of lean meat are heated and separated from the fat in a centrifuge, then treated with ammonium hydroxide gas to rid the product of E. coli or other pathogens. BPA claims that it sold more than 3.7 billion pounds of LFTB between 2003 and 2012 and…
A federal court in San Francisco has issued a temporary injunction against the city of Richmond, California, to block enforcement of a law requiring campaign mailers to include information about “major funding from large out-of-city contributors.” Cmty. Coal. Against Beverage Taxes v. City of Richmond, No. 12-4545 (N.D. Cal., order entered September 7, 2012). The ordinance calls for committees that spend at least $2,500 on a local ballot proposal campaign to list their top five contributors on each mailer. According to news sources, the city adopted the ordinance in June in the midst of a heated political dispute over a November ballot measure that would, if approved by voters, require local businesses to pay a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on the sales of sugar-sweetened beverages. The Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes, purportedly funded by the American Beverage Association, has apparently spent in excess of $350,000 to defeat the measure, outspending the proposal’s…
Industry interests that lost their challenge to the listing of 4-MEI as a chemical known to California to cause cancer have abandoned the appeal they filed before the Third District Court of Appeals in February 2012. Cal. League of Food Processors v. OEHHA, No. C070406 (Cal. Ct. App., case complete August 15, 2012). Additional information about the challenge and trial court decision appears in Issues 420 and 429 of this Update. California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) added the chemical, commonly found in foods such as soy sauce, roasted coffee and the caramel coloring added to colas and beer, to the Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) list in January 2011.
A California court has reportedly dismissed claims filed by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) against fast-food chains, finding that the group failed to investigate its allegations before suing under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65). PCRM v. McDonald’s Corp., No. BC383722; PCRM v. KFC Corp., No. BC457193 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., decided August 15, 2012). Filed in 2008 and 2011, the suits alleged that the restaurants failed to warn consumers that their grilled chicken menu items contain PhIP, a chemical known to the state to cause cancer. Yet, PCRM did not apparently visit the restaurants until February 2012 to take pictures of the posted warnings. The restaurants reportedly post notices that some of their products contain cancer-causing chemicals and refer customers to nutritional brochures for additional details. They contend that their warnings comply with Prop. 65. Information about similar litigation filed in San Francisco County appears in Issue…
A nonprofit family farming organization, the Center for Food Safety and several seed companies have sued the Oregon Department of Agriculture seeking court review and a stay of a temporary rule that would open 1.7 million acres to genetically modified (GM) canola plants. Friends of Family Farmers v. Or. Dep’t of Agric., No. ___ (Or. Ct. App., filed August 15, 2012). The plaintiffs claim that opening formerly protected acreage to GM crops in the Willamette Valley without imposing appropriate buffers would harm them through cross pollination, seed crop contamination, increased pests and disease, and escaped canola weeds. They claim that the rule was adopted under the agency’s temporary rulemaking authority which does not include opportunity for public notice, review and comment. “The critical prerequisite for adopting a temporary rule is the requirement to demonstrate that an agency’s failure to act promptly will result in ‘serious prejudice’ to the public interest or the…
A Los Angeles County resident has filed a putative class action against the Austrian and British makers of “Oxygizer” water, claiming that the companies “falsely represent that through a patented process they are able to hyperoxygenate water and that consumption of Oxygizer leads to a number of purported beneficial health effects.” Ghazarian v. Oxy Beverages Handelsgesellschaft mbH, No. BC489773 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed August 7, 2012). Noting that people cannot absorb oxygen through their digestive systems, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants mislead consumers by falsely claiming their beverage can aid athletic performance, transport oxygen to every body cell, strengthen the immune system, and help office workers in large cities make up oxygen deprivation. The companies purportedly claim that scientific tests support their product representations and that their water is patented; the plaintiff alleges that these claims are also false and misleading. According to the plaintiff, the Federal Trade Commission has…
The day after district attorneys for three California counties filed a lawsuit against tuna producers alleging that they make quantity misrepresentations “by failing to meet the standard of identity for canned tuna products seasoned or flavored with broth, as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations,” it was announced that a $3.3 million settlement had been reached. California v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, No. 12-11729 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed August 2, 2012). According to the San Diego County district attorney, a California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) investigation discovered that the companies “failed to meet the required amount of tuna in cans packed with vegetable broth and added flavors.” Under the terms of the agreement and without admitting liability, each company will provide $300,000 in canned tuna to California food banks, and costs and penalties will be divided among the counties with each receiving $969,500. CDFA will be paid investigative…
A California Superior Court has reportedly dismissed a lawsuit filed by nearly 3,000 Philippine banana plantation workers who claimed that exposure to the pesticide 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) more than 30 years ago caused physical and mental injury including sterility, testicular atrophy, miscarriages, and cancer. Macasa v. Dole Food Co., No. BC467134 (Cal Super. Ct., decided August 8, 2012). More details about the litigation appear in Issue 405 of this Update. According to a company spokesperson, the claims were fraudulent and should not have been brought because no reliable scientific evidence links DBCP agricultural exposures to the injuries alleged. The company reported that an identical lawsuit filed 13 years ago in the Philippines was also dismissed. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has apparently prohibited the pesticide’s use in the United States, classifying it as a probable human carcinogen. See Ventura County Star, August 9, 2012.
