A California federal court has approved a plan to publicize the settlement of a proposed class action filed against Safeway alleging the supermarket chain underfilled its canned tuna. In re Safeway Tuna Cases, No. 15-5078 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 4, 2017). The judge approved the settlement in March 2017 but was concerned that potential class members would be unaware of the dismissal of the case. The publicity plan requires the parties to issue press releases to major news outlets and legal publications in California and nationwide and post notice on a publicly searchable website. When that plan is complete, the court said, the action will be dismissed. Additional details on the settlement appear in Issue 628 of this Update. Issue 634
Tag Archives California
A consumer has filed a lawsuit alleging Mondelez International misleadingly markets Ginger Snaps cookies as healthy. Winn v. Mondelez Int’l, No. 17-2524 (N.D. Cal, removed to federal court May 3, 2017). The proposed class action claims that Ginger Snaps packages were marketed with the phrases “Made With Real Ginger and Molasses” and “Sensible Solutions,” leading consumers to believe the cookies were healthy despite allegedly containing “dangerous levels” of partially hydrogenated oils and high-fructose corn syrup. For alleged violations of California’s consumer protection laws, the plaintiff seeks class certification, damages, restitution, injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. Issue 634
Bumble Bee Foods, LLC has agreed to plead guilty to one felony count for its role in a conspiracy to fix prices of shelf-stable tuna and will pay a minimum $25 million fine. U.S. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, No. 17-CR-249 (N.D. Cal. May 8, 2017). According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Bumble Bee conspired with other seafood companies and their executives to inflate prices for canned and pouch tuna. Two Bumble Bee executives have already pleaded guilty to criminal charges; details appear in Issue 625 of this Update. “Today’s charge is the third to be filed—and the first to be filed against a corporate defendant—in the Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation into price fixing among some of the largest suppliers of packaged seafood,” Acting Assistant Attorney General Andrew Finch said in a May 8, 2017, press release. “The division, along with our law enforcement colleagues, will continue to hold…
A California federal court has ruled that plaintiffs who admitted to reading Healthy Beverage’s website cannot sue the company for listing evaporated cane juice (ECJ) on the ingredient list rather than sugar. Swearingen v. Healthy Beverage, No. 13-4385 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 5, 2017). The plaintiffs initially filed a putative class action claiming Healthy Beverage misled consumers by listing evaporated cane juice on their product labels, but they later alleged in an amended complaint that the company’s website “is incorporated into the label for each of Defendants’ products” and that the website states “cane juice is natural sugar.” Given those allegations, the court dismissed the suit with prejudice, holding, “An allegation of reliance, which is necessary for all of plaintiffs’ claims” under California consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment, was “impossible . . . [t]he Court will not allow them a third bite at the apple to amend a…
A federal court has ruled that Sazerac Co. may take Fetzer Vineyards, Inc. to trial for its trade-dress claims but cannot seek damages because it failed to disclose damage calculations in a timely manner. Sazerac Co. v. Fetzer Vineyards, Inc., No. 15-4618 (N.D. Cal, order entered April 27, 2017). Sazerac, maker of Buffalo Trace bourbon, alleged Fetzer’s use of a buffalo and the words “bourbon barrel aged” on the label of its 1000 Stories zinfandel infringed its federal trademark and trade-dress rights. Sazerac “demonstrated a triable issue whether consumers are likely to be confused by Fetzer’s buffalo and trade dress,” the court found. However, Sazerac indicated it would provide damage calculations based on expert testimony, but it failed to propose a valid methodology until shortly before the settlement conference, when it instead presented calculations based on third-party licensing agreements. Because of the irremediable prejudice to Fetzer, the court ruled that…
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has announced a public hearing on a petition to issue regulations setting “naturally occurring” lead levels in candy containing chili or tamarind. The hearing, which will be webcast, is tentatively scheduled for June 19, 2017. Comments on the petition may be submitted by email or in writing by July 3, 2017. Issue 633
A California plaintiff has filed a projected class action against Omaha Steaks alleging the company’s shipping and handling charges “greatly exceed” the actual cost of shipping items to consumers. McCoy v. Omaha Steaks Int’l, No. BC658076 (Sup. Ct. Cal., Los Angeles Cty., filed April 14, 2017). The plaintiff asserts that he was charged $15.99 in shipping and handling fees for a jar of dry rub, allegedly twice what he would have paid had the product been shipped by the U.S. Postal Service. The complaint relies on the Direct Marketing Association’s ethical guidelines on shipping charges, which purportedly recommend charges be “reasonably related” to actual costs and disclosed early in the order process. Issue 632
A federal court has reportedly refused to dismiss a mislabeling class action alleging Dr Pepper’s Canada Dry Ginger Ale contains “real ginger” but dismissed the plaintiffs’ fraud claims with leave to amend. Fitzhenry-Russell v. Dr Pepper Snapple Grp., Inc., No. 170564 (N.D. Cal., motion hearing April 19, 2017). While the court found the plaintiffs’ labeling claims “plausible,” it rejected the fraud allegations for a lack of precision. The complaint asserts that the ginger ale’s label does not include “real ginger root” as an ingredient but lists chemical flavoring instead. A similar class action against Dr Pepper was transferred to California’s Northern District in April 2017; details on that action appear in Issue 628 of this Update. See Law360, April 19, 2017. Issue 632
A consumer has filed a projected class action alleging Asahi Beer U.S.A., Inc. misleads customers into believing that Asahi Super Dry beer is made in Japan despite being produced in Canada. Panvini v. Asahi Beer U.S.A., Inc., No. 17-1896 (N.D. Cal., filed April 5, 2017). The plaintiff claims that although most of the Asahi Dry beer sold worldwide is brewed in and exported from Japan, the product sold in the United States is made in Toronto, Canada. The complaint alleges that Asahi misleads consumers by using Japanese lettering on labels and packaging and by describing it as the “most popular high-quality beer in Japan.” Claiming violations of California’s consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief, restitution, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 631
A federal court in California has given preliminary approval to a proposed $8.25-million settlement of a class action claiming that kombucha tea products manufactured by Millennium Products, Inc. and sold at Whole Foods were mislabeled. Retta v. Millennium Products, No. 15-1801 (C.D. Cal., order entered January 31, 2017). The plaintiffs claimed that the kombucha labels (i) used the term “antioxidant” when the product contained none; (ii) used the term “non-alcoholic” when the fermented tea product allegedly contained alcohol in excess of the amount permitted for nonalcoholic beverages; and (iii) understated the amount of sugar in the product. In its order, the court granted class certification and approved monetary and injunctive relief, including Millennium’s agreements to (i) add warning labels that the product contains alcohol and must be refrigerated because it is under pressure; (ii) conduct regular sample testing to ensure the accuracy of the products’ sugar content; and (iii) adopt…
