The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the court to resolve a split among circuit courts on the question of whether putative class action plaintiffs must propose an administratively feasible method to identify potential class members. Conagra Brands, Inc. v. Briseno, No. 16-1221 (U.S., denial entered October 10, 2017). The case centers on a consumer's allegation that Conagra Brands, Inc.'s Wesson cooking oil is mislabeled as "100% Natural" because it contains genetically modified ingredients. Conagra appealed a Ninth Circuit decision that joined the Sixth and Seventh Circuits in holding that independent administrative feasibility is not needed for a class action to succeed. The Second, Third, Fourth and Eleventh Circuits have allowed the additional requirement, which companies have used to argue that their putative class actions should be dismissed.
Category Archives U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied certiorari in a six-state coalition's attempt to block enforcement of a California law requiring egg-production facilities to provide hens enough space to extend their limbs and turn around. Missouri v. Becerra, No. 16-1015 (U.S., denial of certiorari entered May 30, 2017). The rule affects private egg producers within each state, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that this interest did not convey standing upon the states. Additional details on the circuit court's decision appear in Issue 623 of this Update. The high court also denied certiorari to Austin "Jack" DeCoster and his son Peter, who sought to appeal the prison sentences they received for their roles in a 2010 Salmonella outbreak that sickened thousands across the United States. DeCoster v. United States, No. 16-877 (U.S., denial of certiorari entered May 18, 2017). The men, former executives of Quality Egg…
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied certiorari in a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit against POM Wonderful LLC and Roll Global LLC alleging the companies made false or misleading health claims about their pomegranate-derived products. POM Wonderful LLC v. FTC, No. 15-525 (U.S., certiorari denied May 2, 2016). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia previously upheld a Commission decision finding POM misled consumers by claiming its products treat, prevent or reduce the risk of heart disease and prostate cancer, with some claims purported to be supported by clinical studies. “I am pleased that the POM Wonderful case has been brought to a successful conclusion,” FTC Chair Edith Ramirez said in a May 2, 2016, press release. “The outcome of this case makes clear that companies like POM making serious health claims about food and nutritional supplement products must have rigorous scientific evidence to back them up.…
“The U.S. Supreme Court recently deviated from its historically stringent view on class certification and affirmed an Eighth Circuit decision to uphold certification of a class of Tyson Foods, Inc. employees who brought suit against Tyson for a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA),” Shook Miami attorneys Frank Cruz-Alvarez and Rachel Canfield explain in an April 13, 2016, analysis for the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse. The article first describes the suit’s origins; Tyson initially paid all employees for an equal amount of time spent donning and doffing protective gear but later adjusted the policy to pay some employees for additional “don and doff” time. Cruz-Alvarez and Canfield note that “Plaintiffs alleged Tyson’s failure to compensate them for time spent performing this ‘integral and indispensable’ work activity violated the FLSA by lengthening their workweek beyond forty hours without providing them with overtime pay.” They also note…
In an article for the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse, Shook Partner Frank Cruz-Alvarez and Associate Rachel Canfield discuss the future of class actions in light of the passing of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. “In the specific area of class-action litigation, Justice Scalia repeatedly thwarted the plaintiffs’ bar’s efforts to encourage liberal interpretation of Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and broadly applied the preemptive effect of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA),” they write. “His death and vacancy have generated much speculation about how the post-Scalia high court will address class actions and other related cases in the terms ahead. Cruz-Alvarez and Canfield provide an overview of Scalia-authored opinions in class action appeals and discuss immediate effects of his death on the litigation environment, noting that one company candidly announced it would not seek certiorari in an antitrust class action because of Scalia’s absence from the bench. Further, they…
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a class action can continue after the defendant offers the lead plaintiff everything requested and the plaintiff rejects the offer. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Jose Gomez, No. 14-857 (U.S., order entered January 20, 2016). The claim at issue stemmed from an alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by Campbell-Ewald Co. after the U.S. Navy contracted the company to create a multimedia recruiting campaign. Campbell-Ewald offered the plaintiff costs plus $1,503 per unwanted text message received, but the plaintiff let the settlement offer expire without response. The company then moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that no case or controversy existed because its offer had mooted the plaintiff’s claim by providing him with complete relief. The district court denied the motion’s argument and the Ninth Circuit later agreed, but other federal appeals courts had decided the issue differently. The Supreme Court…
In a May 8, 2015, Law360 article titled “For High Court, 2 Scoops of Raisins In This Case,” Shook, Hardy & Bacon Partner Ann Peper Havelka and Associate Jara Settles provide an overview of the arguments in a U.S. Supreme Court case challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s program requiring raisin farmers to set aside a portion of their yield to give to the federal government to aid in stabilizing the market. They document the questions and responses during oral argument, noting the issues that interested the justices, including Justice Stephen Breyer’s point that compensation for the alleged taking may have been paid in the form of increased raisin prices and Justice Samuel Alito’s concern over whether a similar program could be instituted for other products, such as cell phones or cars. “Despite the government’s defense of a decades-old price stabilization plan, the court’s questioning during oral argument leaned toward…
The U.S. Supreme Court has heard arguments in a case brought by raisin farmers against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) alleging that a federal program requiring a portion of the yield to be set aside amounted to a taking of their property, thus requiring just compensation. Horne v. USDA, No. 14-275 (U.S., oral arguments heard April 22, 2015). According to news reports, the justices appeared to favor the raisin farmers’ arguments. “You come up with the truck, and you get the shovels, and you take their raisins—probably in the dark of the night,” Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly said. At another point in the proceedings, he called the program’s requirement “a classic, physical taking.” Justice Antonin Scalia reportedly called the program “ridiculous” and compared its structure to communism (“Central planning was thought to work very well in 1937. Russia tried it for a long time.”), and Justice Samuel Alito asked…
The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari to a coalition of California raisin growers that challenged a federal rule requiring them to give a portion of their annual harvests to a crop-specific committee that in turn sells the reserves for export or donates them to school lunch programs or foreign governments. Horne v. USDA, No. 14-275 (U.S., certiorari granted January 16, 2015). The coalition contends that the portion of the harvest that its growers set aside constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees just compensation for such acts. They assert that for the 2002-2003 season, they were required to set aside 47 percent of their raisin crops, and the named plaintiffs were paid less than the cost of production; in the 2003-2004 season, they allegedly set aside 30 percent and were not paid at all. The coalition argues that, in a split from other circuits, the Ninth Circuit…
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has denied certiorari to petitioners alleging that Aaroma Holdings LLC is liable for personal injury claims stemming from the use of diacetyl by Emoral Inc., which declared bankruptcy in 2011 after Aaroma bought its assets in 2010. Diacetyl Plaintiffs v. Aaroma Holdings LLC, No. 14-71 (U.S., cert. denied November 3, 2014). The petitioners had argued that freeing Aaroma from liability would create a loophole for companies looking to avoid tort liability by encouraging them to sell assets before filing for bankruptcy. Additional information about the certiorari petition appears in Issue 532 of this Update. Issue 544
