A federal court in California has denied the motion to certify statewide monetary or injunctive relief classes in litigation alleging that J.M. Smucker’s labels for Uncrustables and Crisco Original and Butter Flavor Shortening products “mislead consumers into believing that they are healthful, when in reality they both contain trans fat and Uncrustables also contain high fructose corn syrup.” Caldera v. The J.M. Smucker Co., No. 12-4936 (C.D. Cal., decided April 15, 2014). As to monetary relief, the court dismissed the motion to certify with prejudice. The court agreed with the defendant that the plaintiff could not satisfy the predominance requirement as to her claims for monetary relief because she failed to identify any method of proving damages on a class-wide basis other than relying on the defendant’s California sales data. According to the court, this is insufficient to support a claim for restitution, because “this is not a case where class…
Tag Archives California
A federal court in California has certified a statewide class of those who purchased Twinings North America’s green, black and white tea products labeled as a “Natural Source of Antioxidants.” Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc., No. 12-2646 (N.D. Cal., order entered April 24, 2014). Details about a previous ruling narrowing the claims appear in Issue 509 of this Update. So ruling, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the proposed class lacked ascertainability “because few, if any, company records exist to identify purchasers or which products they bought, and consumers did not keep receipts or product containers.” According to the court, many classes similar to this one had been certified by courts in the Ninth Circuit to the extent that the “class definition describes a set of common characteristics sufficient to allow a prospective plaintiff to identify himself or herself as having a right to recover based on the description.”…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has determined that the evidence is insufficient to proceed with the Proposition 65 listing process for genistein, a constituent of soy infant formula. Under the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) regulations, to identify the reproductive toxicity endpoint, “it is considered necessary that the evidence for developmental toxicity has resulted entirely or predominantly from prenatal exposure,” OEHHA states. “That is not the case for genistein.” The National Toxicology Program monograph on soy infant formula apparently found “clear evidence of adverse effects of genistein in studies with gestational, lactational, and post-weaning treatment, but does not conclude that the effects could result entirely or predominantly from prenatal exposure.” See OEHHA News Release, April 16, 2014. As to OEHHA’s consideration of potential amendments to Proposition 65’s clear and reasonable warning regulations, the agency has agreed to extend the public…
A federal court in California has determined that a consumer case alleging that Safeway was negligent for failing to notify customers of food recalls may proceed. Hensley-MacLean v. Safeway, Inc., No. 11-01230 (N.D. Cal., order entered April 7, 2014). According to the court, Safeway failed to justify a post-sale exception to California’s negligence law, which imposes a general duty of care. The plaintiffs claim that Safeway should—and could easily—notify customers of food recalls after they have purchased the recalled products because Safeway collects contact information from its loyalty card customers. Safeway argued that it had no duty to warn customers after they have taken the products out of the store. Rejecting the company’s argument, the court observed that Safeway could clearly foresee that its customers would consume the products purchased at its stores. The court also identified a number of previous decisions holding that the manufacturer’s duty extends beyond the…
A federal court in California has denied the motion to dismiss putative class claims that Mott’s LLP deceives consumers by placing “No Sugar Added” on its 100% Apple Juice label. Rahman v. Mott’s LLP, No. 13-3482 (N.D. Cal., order entered April 8, 2014). Information about the court’s prior decision dismissing without prejudice most of the claims in the plaintiff’s first amended complaint appears in Issue 511 of this Update. As to the plaintiff’s second amended complaint, the court disagreed with the defendant’s argument that an ongoing U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rulemaking pertaining to Nutrition Facts label disclosures about the presence or absence of added sugars required dismissal of the action under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. While the court agreed that food regulation is within FDA’s purview, it stated, “plaintiff’s claims do not concern statements made on the apple juice’s Nutrition Facts label; rather, plaintiff’s claims relate to nutrient…
A federal court in California has granted beverage manufacturer Santa Cruz’s motion to dismiss a putative class action alleging that the “evaporated cane juice” (ECJ) listed on its beverage labels is merely sugar, thus violating the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) required use of an ingredient’s “common or usual name.” Swearingen et al. v. Santa Cruz Natural Inc., No. 13-4291 (N.D. Cal., order entered April 2, 2014). Finding that FDA had primary jurisdiction over the matter, the court cited a March 5, 2014, notice that the agency has reopened the comment period on its draft industry guidance pertaining to the use of the term ECJ on food labels. Details about FDA’s action appear in Issue 516 of this Update. According to the court, this notice clearly indicates that FDA is currently engaged in “active rulemaking on the issue” and intends to resolve the matter. Citing FDA’s superior resources to determine…
The Irwindale, California, City Council has reportedly voted 4-0 to declare that Huy Fong Foods, the maker of Sriracha hot sauce, is maintaining a public nuisance. If the council adopts an official resolution during its next meeting, the company will have some 90 days to mitigate the odor, blamed by local residents for their burning eyes and throats. The council’s action came despite assurances from the company’s lawyer that it planned to submit an action plan within the next two weeks and fix the odor problem by June 1. The South Coast Air Quality Management District has been conducting tests at the facility and claims that the problems could be resolved with active carbon filters. Irwindale has sued the popular hot sauce maker in superior court, claiming that the company breached its development agreement and created a public nuisance. The court granted the city’s request for a preliminary injunction requiring…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) will conduct a pre-regulatory public workshop on Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) warnings on April 14, 2014, in Sacramento. The event will be webcast. OEHHA Chief Counsel Carol Monahan-Cummings will discuss potential regulatory action, including clarifying questions and responses, discussion of proposed changes and public questions and answers, as well as next steps. Additional information about the proposed Prop. 65 warning changes appears in Issue 517 of this Update. See OEHHA News Release, April 7, 2014. Issue 520
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a notice of intent to list ethylene glycol (EG) as known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). Used in the manufacture of polyethylene terephthalate resins (PET), which are used in bottling, the chemical has been reported for its potential human reproductive and developmental effects by the National Toxicology Program in a 2004 monograph that “identifies EG as causing developmental toxicity in laboratory animals, and satisfies the formal identification criteria in the Proposition 65 regulations,” according to OEHHA. Public comments “as to whether ethylene glycol meets the criteria set forth in the Proposition 65 regulations for authoritative bodies listings” are requested by May 12, 2014. Companies making and selling products containing chemicals listed under Proposition 65 are required to disclose exposures to California consumers or face fines…
A federal court in California has dismissed the claims of one named plaintiff in a putative class action alleging that certain Costco Kirkland branded products are misbranded and deceptive, and narrowed the claims of the other named plaintiff. Thomas v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 1202908 (N.D. Cal., order entered March 31, 2014). The plaintiff whose claims were dismissed for lack of standing had alleged that the “0 grams trans fat” labeling on Kirkland Signature Kettle Chips was untruthful or misleading. The court agreed with the defendant that she had not cured the standing defects in her second amended complaint (SAC) and thus dismissed her claims with prejudice. Among other matters, she failed to (i) allege that the chips she purchased included any amount of trans fat or that she received a product different from the one as labeled, (ii) demonstrate that the label violated 21 C.F.R. § 101.13(h)(1), or (iii)…
