According to a news source, a California judge recently determined that the California Department of Food and Agriculture did not comply with statutory requirements when it created the state’s Raisin Marketing Board 15 years ago, agreeing with a challenge filed by dissident raisin growers and packers who have long complained about paying for marketing with which they did not agree. Superior Court Judge Raymond Cadei reportedly determined that the raisin industry did not prove that the industry was in crisis when the board was formed, stating, “[t]he record shows that there was no evidence of the kind of severe adverse economic conditions the Marketing Act was intended to address.” The court also ordered the board to repay the plaintiffs’ assessments, which could reach millions of dollars. Board officials have indicated they will explore all legal options to keep the board operating. See The Fresno Bee, April 27, 2013.
Tag Archives California
California’s attorney general (AG) has filed a suit against a number of candy manufacturers and grocery retailers, alleging that they have violated Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) by failing to label “ginger candies and other food products containing ginger” and/or “plum candies and other products containing plums,” which the AG claims contain lead, a substance known to the state “to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm.” People v. Dakota Bros., No. __ (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., filed April 30, 2013). Under Prop. 65, “businesses must provide a ‘clear and reasonable warning’ before exposing individuals to lead,” according to the complaint, and the defendants have allegedly not provided such warnings. The AG seeks civil penalties, not to exceed $2,500 per day for each violation, injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Monster Beverage Corp. has filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against San Francisco’s city attorney, who launched an investigation into the company’s alleged marketing of energy drinks to children in October 2012. Monster Beverage Corp. v. Herrera, No. 13-786 (C.D. Cal., E. Div., filed April 29, 2013). According to the complaint, City Attorney Dennis Herrera has threatened to sue the company under the Sherman Law and California’s consumer protection laws if Monster does not agree to reformulate its product to lower the caffeine content, provide adequate warning labels, cease promoting over-consumption in marketing, cease using alcohol and drug references in marketing, and cease marketing to minors. The energy beverage maker contends that Herrera’s investigation and demands are preempted by federal law and represent an attempt to “usurp FDA’s [the Food and Drug Administration’s] regulatory authority” contrary to the primary-jurisdiction principle. Monster also claims that Herrera’s conduct violates the…
A federal court in California has reportedly ordered two plaintiffs’ law firms to disclose under seal any contributions made “either directly or indirectly by the firm or by any member of the firm to the Democratic Attorneys General Association from January 1, 2012, to present, and any communications between either law firm and the Mississippi Attorney General’s office concerning any such contribution.” In re Diamond Foods, Inc., Securities Litig., No. 11-5386 (N.D. Cal., order entered April 23, 2013). The order follows Diamond Food’s opposition to the appointment of the Mississippi Public Employee Retirement System (MPERS) as class representative in a securities class action alleging that the food company improperly accounted for some $50 million in payments to walnut growers. When the payments, allegedly intended to artificially lower the company’s fiscal 2011 costs, were revealed, a $2.3 billion deal to acquire the Pringles brand was purportedly delayed and later fell apart,…
The California State Senate Committee on Governance and Finance has reportedly passed legislation (S.B. 622) that would impose a 1-cent per fluid ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages such as soft drinks, energy drinks, sweet teas, and sports drinks. Sponsored by Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel) and passed in a 5-2 vote, the measure aims to generate funds to support the newly created Children’s Health Promotion Fund and finance programs statewide to fight childhood obesity. The bill excludes milk products, and fruit and vegetable juices would be subject to the law only if the fruit or vegetable content in the beverages dropped below 50 percent. “This is the first time this state committee has passed a bill that would place a tax on sugary drinks and the first step toward stemming the epidemic of childhood obesity,” Monning said. “By taxing these products we will be able to implement programs that will assist…
After a state court in California granted the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC’s) request for preliminary injunction and ordered Cal/EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to remove bisphenol A (BPA) from the list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity, OEHHA did so. OEHHA had argued that ACC’s request to enjoin OEHHA from “listing, or taking any further action in listing” BPA was moot because the Proposition 65 (Prop. 65) listing action took effect April 11, but the court said it had the authority to order OEHHA to remove the chemical from the list. According to the court, ACC demonstrated that it had a reasonable probability of prevailing on the merits of its claim that the National Toxicology Program report on which OEHHA relied for its listing did not identify BPA as causing reproductive toxicity. “[T]here was no definitive statement that BPA is a developmental toxicant…
A federal court in California has ordered Bumble Bee Foods, LLC to produce “documents dating back to 2004 regarding the marketing and labeling strategies for the products [plaintiff] purchased and for products with the same Omega-3 label or with nearly identical labels” in a putative nationwide consumer-fraud class action. Ogden v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, No. 12-1828 (N.D. Cal., order entered April 16, 2013). The named plaintiff seeks to represent class members who purchased products she did not buy and purchased a product made by a separate company that is not a defendant in the case. According to the court, the discovery dispute was about whether Bumble Bee “must produce discovery on all of its products . . . from eight years prior to the initiation of this lawsuit . . . [and involving] King Oscar.” The court determined that it was not appropriate to consider whether the named plaintiff has…
A federal court in California has decided that some consumer-fraud claims brought by an animal rights group and a company that makes vegan faux foie gras against Hudson Valley Foie Gras (HVFG) over statements that the defendant’s product is “the humane choice” may proceed. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. HVFG, L.L.C., No. 12-5809 (N.D. Cal., order entered April 12, 2013). While California prohibits the production of foie gras, which involves force-feeding ducks, the law does not prevent out-of-state producers, such as New York-based HVFG, from marketing in the state or shipping its product there. While the court reportedly acknowledged that a definition for “humane” is “hard to pin down,” it found that the plaintiffs might be able to prove use of the term by HVFG false if the production process is shown to cause ducks an undue amount of pain. The court dismissed the Animal Legal Defense Fund from the lawsuit…
A federal court in California has granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in a putative class action alleging that the companies falsely label and market Splenda Essentials with Antioxidants®, Splenda Essentials with Fiber® and Splenda Essentials with B Vitamins®. Bronson v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., No. 12-4184 (N.D. Cal., order entered April 16, 2013). Dismissed with leave to amend were claims brought under the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act to the extent that the claims include statements made on the defendants’ website or in print ads. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to allege that they relied on these statements when purchasing the products. Also dismissed with leave to amend are claims about the Fiber and B Vitamins products because the plaintiffs relied on lack of scientific substantiation theories which cannot be asserted…
A federal court in California has issued a tentative rejection of a settlement reached in a putative class action alleging that Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc. falsely claims that its ice cream is all natural despite containing genetically modified ingredients. Tobin v. Conopco Inc., No. 12-5881 (N.D. Cal., notice filed April 15, 2013). The court’s notice of tentative ruling also raises questions for hearing including (i) “what is the parties’ best argument that venue is proper in this district,” (ii) are the plaintiff’s claims typical of the class claims in light of the defendants’ contention that she lacks standing to bring her claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, (iii) is the parties’ proposed notice the best practicable, (iv) do the proposed cy pres charities have any nexus to the claims, and (iv) is it appropriate to reduce the funds available for settlement purposes to cover fees and administrative…
