The Ninth Circuit has upheld California’s ban on force-feeding ducks and geese to produce foie gras, finding the state’s law is not preempted by the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA). Assoc. des Éleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Québec v. Becerra, No. 15- 55192 (9th Cir., opinion filed September 15, 2017). In 2013, the Ninth Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge to the ban filed by the same plaintiffs. The court reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, who challenged the state’s ban on sales or production of foie gras made from force-fed birds. First, the court held the ban is not expressly preempted by the PPIA because the federal statute’s “ingredient” requirement addresses the components of poultry products, not husbandry or feeding practices, and California’s law does not ban all foie gras—only that made from force-fed birds. “Nothing in the federal law … limits a state’s…
Tag Archives California
A plaintiff has filed a proposed class action alleging ACH Food Companies sells its Fleischmann’s® Simply Homemade Baking Mix products in opaque boxes that contain approximately 50 percent slack fill. Buso v. ACH Food Cos., No. 17-1872 (S.D. Cal., filed September 14, 2017). The complaint asserts that the plaintiff would not have purchased the products had he known the container was substantially empty. Alleging violations of California consumer-protection laws, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, exemplary, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution and attorney’s fees.
After a jury unanimously found in May 2017 that two former University of California, Davis professors willfully infringed the university’s patents on a strawberry breed they developed in the school’s program, both sides have agreed on a settlement that will dispose of all other claims against each other. Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Cal. Berry Cultivars, No. 16-2477 (N.D. Cal., filed September 18, 2017). The professors, who left the university to form a private strawberry-breeding company, have agreed to return breeding materials to the school and relinquish $2.5 million in future royalties related to pre-existing patent-share agreements but will retain interests in some of the varietals they bred. Additional details appear in Issues 604, 633 and 636 of this Update.
Following a bench trial, a California federal court has ruled that Fetzer Vineyards, Inc.’s “bourbon barrel aged” 1000 Stories red zinfandel wine, which features a sketch of a buffalo on its label, does not infringe the trademark or trade dress of Sazerac Co.’s Buffalo Trace bourbon. Sazerac Co. v. Fetzer Vineyards, Inc., No. 15-4618 (N.D. Cal., entered September 19, 2017). “This case was not close,” the court said. Sazerac “did not establish that Buffalo Trace’s bourbon trade dress was similar to 1000 Stories wine’s. It did not establish that Fetzer intended to infringe at the creation of its product or in its marketing. There was no evidence of actual confusion between the products … and no indication that consumers of 1000 Stories are even aware of Buffalo Trace.” The court had already limited Sazerac’s potential recovery to attorney’s fees after the company failed to provide damage calculations on a timely…
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court's denial of a preliminary injunction stopping the warning-label portion of San Francisco's sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax from taking effect. Am. Beverage Ass'n v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 16-16072 (9th Cir., entered September 19, 2017). Additional information about the complaint and denial appears in Issues 573 and 605 of this Update, and details on the enforcement delay and associated amicus briefs appear in Issues 592, 607 and 613. San Francisco's warning-label ordinance would require a warning about the health effects of SSBs—specifically, "Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay"—to occupy 20 percent of the visible portions of fixed SSB advertising, including billboards, structures and vehicles. After several industry associations challenged the requirement, the district court held that the warning was not misleading, would not place an undue burden on the plaintiffs' commercial…
A federal court has approved the settlement agreement in a class action against Quorn Foods, which has agreed to warn consumers that its products contain mold. Birbrower v. Quorn Foods, No. 16-1346 (C.D. Cal., entered September 1, 2017). Under the agreement, the labels will state, “Mycoprotein is a mold member of the fungi family. There have been rare cases of allergic reactions to products that contain mycoprotein.” The Center for Science in the Public Interest was not a party to the suit but filed documents stating it would object to any settlement that did not include disclosure and allergy warnings. The settlement does not preclude "any claims for personal injuries for those customers who may have suffered adverse reactions from mold allergies after consuming Quorn products,” the agreement notes.
A California federal court has limited relief to monetary damages in a lawsuit alleging that Jelly Belly Candy Co. misleads consumers into believing its Sport Beans do not contain sugar because the term "evaporated cane juice" (ECJ) appears on the label instead. Gomez v. Jelly Belly Candy Co., No. 17-0575 (C.D. Cal., entered August 18, 2017). Additional details about the case appear in Issues 629 and 638 of this Update. The court found that to pursue California consumer-protection claims, the plaintiff must establish that she had no adequate remedy at law, but she failed to do so in an amended complaint. The only injury the plaintiff alleged was that she “lost money” because she purchased the product, the court stated, limiting her relief to that alleged loss. Issue 645
A California federal court will allow to proceed a suit alleging that Kellogg’s breakfast cereals and bars are unhealthy because of excess added sugars, finding that the labeling and packaging of 24 named products “contain at least one statement that is not preempted, non-misleading or puffery as a matter of law.” Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 16-4955 (N.D. Cal., entered August 10, 2017). The court rejected Kellogg’s argument that the company accurately disclosed the ingredients of its products and complied with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling guidelines. The court also found that because FDA “expressly decided” not to set a level for sugar that would disqualify a product from making health or nutrient-content claims, any allegation that Kellogg’s product labeling was misleading because of a certain amount of added sugar was preempted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. However, the court refused to preempt a claim…
A California federal court has certified two classes alleging that Deoleo USA Inc., importer of Bertolli and Carapelli olive oils, misleadingly labeled its products as "extra virgin" and "imported from Italy." Koller v. Med Foods, Inc., No. 14-2400 (N.D. Cal., entered August 24, 2017). Details on the court's denial of a motion to dismiss appear in Issue 550 of this Update. The court held that the question is whether the manufacturer “breached any legal obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure its oils meet the standards at least until the ‘best by’ date” on the bottle, a question that is subject to determination on a class-wide basis and predominates over any individual issues. Issue 645
A former turkey farmer has filed a lawsuit against Marin County, California, alleging that a land-use ordinance intended to encourage multigenerational housing on family farms places an unconstitutional burden on landowners by requiring them to farm “in perpetuity.” Benedetti v. County of Marin (Cal. Super. Ct., Marin County, filed July 14, 2017). In May 2017, Marin County certified a new land-use plan that requires dwelling units on agricultural lands to be owned by a “farmer or operator actively and directly engaged in agricultural use of the property.” The plaintiff alleges that the plan prevents him from building a second house on his property for his son, who is not involved in his farming business. The plaintiff argues that the policies violate his due process, are an unconstitutional taking of his right to develop his property, and may deprive him of his liberty by forcing him off the land he has…
