An industry trade group has sued Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to stop it from listing styrene as a carcinogen under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Styrene Info. & Research Ctr. v. OEHHA, No. 09-53089 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., filed 07/15/09). According to the complaint, styrene does not cause human cancer, and its proposed Prop. 65 listing would cause the $28-billion-a-year industry “irreparable harm” by stigmatizing the chemical. It also alleges that OEHHA failed to comply with administrative procedures in interpreting and implementing Prop. 65, created secret interpretative standards and refused to consider new scientific evidence indicating that styrene is not “known to cause cancer.” Styrene is used in milk and egg cartons, berry baskets, produce shipping crates, foodservice containers, plastic pipes, automobile parts, medical equipment, countertops, and many other products. To support its proposed styrene listing, OEHHA cited a 2002 International…
Category Archives State Courts
The Cancer Project, a vegan advocacy group affiliated with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), has reportedly filed a putative consumer fraud class action on behalf of three New Jersey residents that seeks to require cancer-risk labels on hot dogs and other processed meats. Filed July 22, 2009, in New Jersey Superior Court, the complaint names as defendants the parent companies of several hot dog manufacturers, including Kraft Foods Inc., Sara Lee Corp. and Nathan’s Famous Inc. The suit seeks damages for the named plaintiffs and declaratory relief under the Consumer Fraud Act for the proposed class. The Cancer Project has contended that processed meats contain human carcinogens like nitrites and N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), basing its claim on a recent meta-analysis by the American Institute for Cancer Research that purportedly associates the daily consumption of processed meat with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. “Just as tobacco causes lung cancer,…
A consumer supported by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has reportedly filed a putative class action in New Jersey Superior Court, alleging that meals he purchased at Denny’s® restaurants contained “alarmingly large and undisclosed amounts of sodium.” DeBenedetto v. Denny’s Corp., No. ___ (N.J. Super. Ct., filed July 23, 2009). At issue are menu items such as Moons Over My Hammy, Spicy Buffalo Chicken Melt and Meat Lover’s Scramble, which purportedly contain sodium levels that exceed the daily recommended limit of 1,500 mg. According to the complaint, “Denny’s menu deceptively presents various items as single meals to be consumed by one individual without disclosing that they contain substantially more sodium (in some case two or three times more) than the maximum recommended amount for all meals consumed by an individual during the day.” The class action “seeks to compel Denny’s restaurants to disclose on menus the…
The Iowa Supreme Court has awarded disability benefits to a former slaughterhouse worker who allegedly contracted brucellosis from butchering hogs. IBP, Inc. v. Burress, No. 07-1887 (Iowa, decided July 10, 2009). The court determined that the disease was caused by a traumatic event and thus was a compensable injury under state law. So ruling, the court affirmed an intermediate appellate court decision rejecting a district court’s determination that the claimant had an occupational disease and failed to timely file his workers’ compensation petition. The court discusses in some detail how the claimant came into contact with Brucella organisms through open cuts while exposed to hog blood during his 10-year tenure at IBP, Inc.’s meat-packing plant. He allegedly developed a chronic infection of the hips and bone as a result of his contact with blood products and tissue from slaughtered hogs, but was not apparently diagnosed with the disease until some six years…
A New York appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit that sought a declaration from the state agricultural department that foie gras is an adulterated food product which poses a risk to human health. In re: Humane Soc’y of the U.S., Inc. v. Brennan, No. 506189 (N.Y. App. Div., decided June 18, 2009). According to the court, the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit. The Humane Society and other interested parties had unsuccessfully petitioned the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets to issue an adulterated food product declaration as to foie gras. A trial court dismissed the plaintiffs’ subsequent declaratory judgment action for lack of standing, and they appealed. According to the appeals court, to establish standing, “petitioners were required to demonstrate that the Commissioner’s declination to issue a declaratory ruling caused them an injury-in-fact different from the general public.” The court noted that commission declaratory rulings are discretionary and stated,…
A company that manufactures mustard oil supplied to the employers of food-flavoring workers who alleged they contracted bronchiolitis obliterans from occupational exposure to diacetyl and other chemicals, is seeking court confirmation of its good faith settlement with some of the workers. Ortiz v. Flavor & Extract Mfrs. Assoc. of the U.S., No. BC364831 (Cal. Super Ct., Los Angeles Cty., motion filed June 2, 2009). According to Naturex, Inc.’s motion for an order confirming the settlement, its experts were prepared to testify that scientific evidence and published literature do not link mustard oil to bronchiolitis obliterans, a point two of the plaintiffs appeared to concede when they initiated settlement discussions rather than making their expert available for deposition. The settlement agreement would provide these plaintiffs with $7,500 in exchange for a release and dismissal with prejudice. The motion also indicates that another plaintiff never used mustard oil during his employment. He has…
Environmental World Watch, Inc. (EWW) has reportedly filed litigation under California’s Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) against a number of companies that make snack foods. According to the attorneys who litigate as this advocacy organization, the companies fail to warn consumers that their products contain acrylamide, a chemical formed when certain foods such as breads, french fries and potato chips are made; it is included on the state’s list of substances known to cause cancer. Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, the suit apparently seeks punitive damages for fraudulent concealment and Prop. 65 violations. EWW has previously brought Prop. 65 claims involving acrylamide against fast food restaurants. More information about that litigation appears in issue 5 of this Update. See CourtHouse News, June 10, 2009.
A California appeals court has determined that Starbucks did not violate state labor laws by allowing shift supervisors to share the tips left by customers in collective tip boxes and thus, overturned an $86 million award made to a class of current and former Starbucks’ baristas. Chau v. Starbucks Corp., No. D053491 (Cal. Ct. App., decided June 2, 2009). Because shift supervisors serve customers and rotate such duties with baristas, the appeals court determined that the shift supervisors were among those for whom the tips were intended. So ruling, the court distinguished Starbucks’ policy of equitably distributing collective tip-box proceeds from the prohibited practice of mandatory tip pooling.
The pesticide-exposure claims of Nicaraguan banana-plantation workers were dismissed in two cases after a hearing that began April 21, 2009, in a state court in Los Angeles, California. Meija v. Dole Food Co., No. BC340049 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.); Rivera v. Dole Food Co., No. BC379820 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.). Additional details about the events leading to the court’s show-cause order and hearing appear in issue 297 of this Update. The court agreed with Dole Food Co. allegations that Nicaraguan lawyers, seeking to collect millions of dollars in damages from the company, recruited poor men to pose as plantation workers and claim that pesticide exposure caused their sterility. Dole introduced evidence showing a decade-long conspiracy to defraud U.S. companies and perpetuate a massive fraud on the court. Dole alleged that the attorneys intimidated witnesses and paid plaintiffs, showed them videos depicting plantation life, falsified sterility documents,…
A California judge has reportedly ordered the parties to litigation over the exposure of banana-plantation workers to a pesticide that allegedly caused their sterility to explain why two lawsuits should not be dismissed as a sanction for the alleged misconduct of the plaintiffs and their lawyers. Mejia v. Dole, No. BC340049 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.). In 2008, a jury awarded six Nicaraguan workers $5.8 million in damages in the first of several such cases to be tried in the United States; the court reduced the verdict by half, and the case is on appeal. Thereafter, the defendant began filing the depositions of Nicaraguan witnesses who claimed that (i) some of the plaintiffs had never worked on banana farms, (ii) work certificates and lab reports had been falsified, and (iii) some of the plaintiffs have children, despite their sterility claims. The court reportedly stayed the personal-injury lawsuits and ordered…
