Austin-based Amy’s Ice Creams has reportedly filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in a federal district court against Amy’s Kitchen, which makes frozen lunch and dinner entrées with organic and non-genetically modified ingredients. While the two companies have apparently co existed without difficulty for more than 20 years, Amy’s Ice Creams, now with 15 shops throughout Texas, claims that it recently learned about the frozen food company’s plan to launch a line of frozen treats. Amy’s Kitchen is based in California, and its products are sold nationally. Ice cream company founder Amy Simmons reportedly said, “We don’t want them to go into ice cream because there will be obvious confusion.” According to the complaint, the confusion would not be limited to Texas consumers, as the ice cream company “is well known beyond the state. The success of Amy’s [Ice Creams] has been featured in such publications as Inc., Southern Living, Wall…
Tag Archives California
A federal court in California has reportedly determined that a named plaintiff in a putative consumer-fraud class action may pursue claims pertaining to the defendant’s green tea products but not its black teas. Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., No. 12-2204 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 31, 2013). The plaintiff apparently alleges that the defendant made misleading statements in press releases and on its website about the presence of antioxidants in its tea products, including both green and black teas. Because he did not purchase the black teas, the court ruled that he lacked standing to represent consumers who did purchase them. The court also reportedly dismissed the plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim but refused to dismiss most of his other allegations finding them sufficiently pleaded. See Bloomberg BNA Product Safety & Liability Reporter, June 4, 2013.
A California resident has filed a strict liability lawsuit against a food retailer and the Oregon-based company that produced a frozen organic fruit mix allegedly implicated in a widespread Hepatitis A outbreak. Brackenridge v. Townsend Farms Corp., No. BC510633 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed June 3, 2013). According to the complaint, Lynda Brackenridge contracted the disease after purchasing the frozen fruit blend and remains hospitalized in isolation and in guarded condition. Seeking past and future economic and non-economic damages in excess of $25,000, court costs and interest, the plaintiff also alleges negligence and breach of implied warranties.
A federal court in California has granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by Twinings North America, Inc. to the second amended putative class complaint filed by a woman who alleged that she paid a premium for the company’s green, black, white, and red teas relying on their purportedly misleading label—“a natural source of antioxidants.” Lanovaz v. Twinings N. Am., Inc., No. 12-2646 (N.D. Cal., order entered May 23, 2013). The company sought to dismiss claims relating to products the plaintiff did not purchase, labeling the plaintiff did not see or advertising upon which the plaintiff did not rely. According to the court, as long as the “not purchased products” are nearly identical, a plaintiff may bring claims on behalf of others related to those products. Here, “Because the claims for 51 of the varieties of tea are based upon the exact same label describing…
The plaintiffs in putative class litigation alleging inaccurate wage statements and denial of required meal breaks have filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement brought against Starbucks in 2008. York v. Starbucks Corp., No. 08-7919 (C.D. Cal., W. Div., motion filed May 10, 2013). Without admitting liability, the company has apparently agreed to pay $3 million to resolve the claims of California Starbucks employees who fall into one or two subclasses: (i) the “Meal Break Settlement Subclass,” including “all persons employed by Starbucks within the state of California in the job categories of café attendant, barista, or shift supervisor during the period from December 2, 2004, to January 31, 2013”; and (ii) the “Wage Statement Settlement Subclass,” including “all persons employed by Starbucks in the state of California in the job categories of café attendant, barista, shift supervisor, assistant store manager, or store manager during the period…
A federal court in California has granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by General Mills in litigation alleging that certain of its Nature Valley® products are deceptively labeled and advertised as “natural” because they contain sweeteners, such as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), high-maltose corn syrup or maltodextrin and rice maltodextrin, which are purportedly “highly processed” and therefore not “natural.” Janney v. General Mills, No. 12-3919 (N.D. Cal., filed May 10, 2013). The plaintiffs are represented by Center for Science in the Public Interest attorney Stephen Gardner. The court disagreed with General Mills that the primary jurisdiction doctrine barred the claims, finding that the Food and Drug Administration “has signaled a relative lack of interest in devoting its limited resources to what it evidently considers a minor issue, or in establishing some ‘uniformity in administration’ with regard to the use of ‘natural’ in food…
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera has filed a consumer-fraud lawsuit on behalf of the people of the state of California against Monster Beverage just one week after the company sued Herrera to halt his investigation into company advertising practices and demands. People v. Monster Beverage Corp., No. CGC-13-531161 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., filed May 6, 2013). According to Herrera’s press release, Monster Beverage’s preemptive suit constituted “‘forum shopping’ and a bid to win the race to the courthouse.” Details about Monster Energy’s lawsuit appear in Issue 482 of this Update. The new lawsuit alleges that the company “aggressively markets” its energy drink products to children and teenagers, fails to adequately warn consumers about the purported risks of consuming such products, and illegally sold its beverages until earlier this year as a dietary supplement. According to the complaint, product labels claim that three 16-ounce cans can be safely…
A number of companies that make cereals and other products containing acrylamide, a chemical believed to be a byproduct of the Maillard reaction and found in baked or fried starchy foods, have been sued under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65) for failing to provide warnings to consumers. RBC Four Co. LLC v. Post Foods, LLC, No. BC507122 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed April 30, 2013). According to the plaintiff, the chemical was added to the Prop. 65 list as a substance known to the state to cause cancer in January 1990 and became subject to the law’s warning requirements 20 months later. The complaint also notes that the current safe-harbor acrylamide-intake level is .2 μg/day and that the defendants’ products contain acrylamide levels that exceed maximum allowable dose levels “for chemicals causing reproductive toxicity with require warnings under Proposition 65.” Alleging that…
A federal court in California has rendered its reluctant approval of a preliminary settlement in class litigation against Kellogg Co., alleging that the company falsely advertised its cereal product as a food that could help improve children’s attentiveness by 20 percent. Dennis v. Kellogg Co., No. 09-1786 (S.D. Cal., order entered May 3, 2013). The matter had been remanded from the Ninth Circuit, which reversed an earlier settlement approval, finding that the cy pres distribution to organizations helping the indigent of funds remaining after the class claims were paid had not been properly assigned. Additional information about the Ninth Circuit’s decision appears in Issues 447 and 453 of this Update. The district court observes that the new designated cy pres recipients, the Consumers Union, Consumer Watchdog and Center for Science in the Public Interest, are appropriate as consumer-protection organizations, but expresses its dismay over the decrease in cash value to…
Working through California’s Environmental Protection Agency, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) will collaborate with stakeholders and the legislature to advance Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) reforms that would end frivolous “shake-down” lawsuits, improve warnings about dangerous chemicals and strengthen the science that supports warning levels. The governor will have to convince environmental and consumer groups that the reforms are needed; any changes will apparently require the approval of at least two-thirds of both legislative houses, and supporters believe that the current law works well to force businesses to cease making products with chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Numerous lawsuits have been filed against food companies under the law since it was adopted in 1986 for various substances found in foods, including acrylamide, MEI-4 and lead. According to a May 7, 2013, press release, the governor will seek to (i) cap or limit attorney’s fees in Prop.…
