A wheelchair-bound plaintiff has reportedly filed a putative class action in California state court against the largest franchisee of TGI Friday’s, Briad Restaurant Group LLC, for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Hicks v. Briad Restaurants Grp. LLC, No. BC546927 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed May 28, 2014). Plaintiff, Chris Hicks, alleges that Briad Restaurant violated the ADA by having deficient bathroom facilities and insufficient signage for disabled parking spaces in at least 20 of its locations, and he further asserts that the company had received notice of the issues, was given an opportunity to fix them and failed to do so. As a result, Hicks argues that Briad Restaurant has violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act and seeks statutory relief and injunctive damages. See Law360, May 29, 2014 Issue 525
Tag Archives California
A California court has approved the settlement of claims that alcohol beverage makers allegedly sold their products without providing warnings required under the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Bonilla v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, No. BC537188 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., judgment entered May 30, 2014). Additional details about the claims appear in issue 515 of this Update. Under the agreement, the companies, denying that the signage they already provided to retailers failed to comply with Prop. 65, will (i) obtain a list of all current licensees from the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control; (ii) mail or email to every licensee “Proposition 65 Signage”; (iii) mail or email a letter providing contact information for ordering additional signage free of charge, informing licensees of their posting obligations and describing regulatory requirements pertaining to placement; and (iv) repeat these actions every five years. They also…
A California state trial court has approved the settlement agreement in a class action against Innovative Dining Group LLC (IDG), owner of the Boa Steakhouse and Sushi Roku chains, alleging that the restaurants falsely advertised their menu as containing Kobe beef. Hall v. Innovative Dining Grp. LLC, No. BC493144 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., motion granted May 30, 2014). Plaintiffs claimed that using the term “Kobe beef” implies that the beef came from Wagyu cattle raised and slaughtered in the Kobe region of Japan, but IDG’s restaurants advertised Kobe beef on their menus even while the U.S. Department of Agriculture banned beef imports from that region from May 2010 to August 2012. While admitting no wrongdoing, IDG has agreed to issue $20 gift certificates to customers who can prove that they purchased a Kobe beef menu item, $10 gift certificates to any class member who submits a claim, and…
A California federal court has certified a class of California consumers who allege that Blue Diamond Growers’ almond milk is mislabeled as “All Natural” and hides its added sugar content by listing “evaporated cane juice” (ECJ) on its label instead. Werdebaugh v. Blue Diamond Growers, No. 5:12-cv-2724 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 23, 2014). The court granted plaintiff Chris Werdebaugh’s motion for certification of the California class but rejected his request for nationwide certification because he had not shown that California had any interest that outweighed the interests of other states in determining their own policies. Werdebaugh argued that the “All Natural” label on Blue Diamond’s almond milk is misleading because the product contains chemical preservatives, synthetic chemicals and added artificial color, and the label also lists ECJ as an ingredient when sugar is the common name as required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The court ruled…
A federal court in California has granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss in a putative class action alleging that Whole Foods Market Group misleads consumers by labeling certain food products containing sodium acid pyrophosphate (SAPP) as “All Natural.” Garrison v. Whole Foods Mkt. Group, Inc., No. 13-5222 (N.D. Cal., order entered June 2, 2014). Additional information about the complaint appears in Issue 504 of this Update. The court ruled that (i) the claims were not preempted under federal law; (ii) the primary jurisdiction doctrine did not apply (given the lack of a clear indication that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration intended to revisit its decision not to adopt formal regulations as to the meaning of “natural”); (iii) the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action (with the exception of allegations pertaining to marketing in various media and advertising—these claims were dismissed with leave to amend);…
A federal court in California has certified a nationwide class of consumers as to the injunctive relief requested in litigation against Dole Packaged Foods regarding its labeling claims that certain fruit products are “All Natural” despite the presence of ascorbic acid and citric acid, but limited the damages class to California consumers and the number of products at issue. Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 12-1831 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Cal., San Jose Div., order entered may 30, 2014). Dismissed with prejudice were Dole products and label statements in the second amended complaint for which the named plaintiff did not move for class certification. An earlier ruling narrowing the claims is discussed in Issue 498 of this Update. Among other matters, the court disagreed with Dole’s argument that the class could not be ascertained because company records identifying purchasers or the products they purchased do not exist and further…
A California federal court has dismissed a putative class action against Diamond Foods Inc. alleging that its Kettle tortilla chips are mislabeled as “All Natural” despite containing synthetic ingredients. Surzyn v. Diamond Foods Inc., No. 14-cv-136 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 28, 2014). Citing a lack of basic factual assertions such as which product was the subject of the lawsuit, the court granted plaintiff Dominika Surzyn leave to amend within 21 days. Diamond Foods argued that its “All Natural” label is not misleading within the context of the rest of the packaging, which lists some of the ingredients—maltodextrin and dextrose—at issue in the case, and cited a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) determination that consumers’ understanding of “natural” is context-specific. The court rejected Diamond Foods’ assertions, finding that FTC had reached its conclusion not to dismiss any meaning and implication of the world “natural” but to decline to offer guidance on the…
A California bill requiring labels to disclose genetically modified (GM) ingredients in food recently failed to pass after a close vote in the state senate. Opponents argued that it would cost the average consumer as much as $400 per year for labeling a category of food that presents no risk to the public. Vermont became the first state to enact a GM ingredient-labeling law in May 2014. Additional information about that statute appears in Issue 521 of this Update. See Reuters, May 29, 2014.
The California Senate has passed a bill (S.B. 1000) that would require all sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) containing more than 75 calories per 12-ounce serving to carry labels warning of obesity, diabetes and tooth decay. Milk-based beverages and 100 percent fruit and vegetable juices would be exempt. Introduced in February 2014 by state Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel) and co-sponsored by the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, the “Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act,” is backed by the California Medical Association, Latino Coalition for a Healthy California and California Black Health Network. Noting “overwhelming evidence” linking obesity and the consumption of sweetened beverages,” and claiming that SSBs are the “single largest source of added sugars in the American diet,” the bill specifically seeks to “protect consumers and promote informed purchasing decisions . . . about the harmful health effects that result from the consumption of drinks with added sugars.” If passed by…
Frank Magliato, “in his capacity as stockholder representative for the former shareholders of Natural Balance Pet Foods,” has reportedly filed a lawsuit against H.J. Heinz Co., alleging that the food company knowingly sold processed sheep lungs adulterated with rubber rings to Natural Balance. The complaint alleges that while Heinz knew both that the rubber rings had been lodged in internal organs of the sheep and that the rings could be hazardous to animals, the company did not alert Natural Balance or its customers to the potential danger. According to Magliato, Natural Balance recognized that the food was adulterated before selling the products, but had it not, Heinz’s negligence could have exposed the pet food company to litigation and damaged its reputation. Magliato seeks disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, restitution and $400,000 in damages for strict products liability, breach of express and implied warranty, negligence, unfair business practices and fraud, as well…
