The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the “filed rate doctrine” does not bar the state law-based claims of dairy farmers alleging that milk marketing cooperatives (handlers) provided erroneous reports to the federal government which relied on them to set a minimum price structure for raw milk sales; as a result, the farmers purportedly lost millions of dollars. Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc., No. 10-16448 (9th Cir., decided August 7, 2012). Each of the four named plaintiffs in this consolidated proceeding filed claims on behalf of a nationwide class alleging (i) negligent misrepresentation, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and unjust enrichment, all under California common law; and (ii) violation of California’s Unfair Business Practices Law. The filed rate doctrine “‘is a judicial creation that arises from decisions interpreting federal statutes that give federal agencies exclusive jurisdiction to set rates for specified utilities, originally through rate-setting procedures involving the…
Tag Archives California
A California resident has filed a putative class action against Smart Balance, Inc., alleging that the 100 mg of plant sterols in a single serving of the company’s spreadable butter products do not, as advertised, block the absorption of dietary cholesterol. Aguilar v. Smart Balance, Inc., No. 12-1862 (S.D. Cal., filed July 27, 2012). The named plaintiff seeks to represent either a multistate class of consumers or a California class. According to the complaint, studies show that, to reduce cholesterol, “a minimum of 0.8 grams, and preferably 2 grams, of plant sterols must be consumed daily.” Given the purportedly modest amount of sterols in the defendants’ products, the plaintiff claims that half a container would need to be consumed in one day “to realize even the minimum amount of cholesterol reduction benefit.” The plaintiff claims that she purchased the product relying on the cholesterol benefit representations and did not get…
Turtle Island Restoration Network and the Center for Biological Diversity have filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in a federal court in California against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to force the agency to act on their June 2011 petition seeking to reduce the allowable level of mercury in seafood. Turtle Island Restoration Network v. Hamburg, No. 12-03884 (N.D. Cal., filed July 25, 2012). The organizations claim that while FDA had 180 days, or until December 17, 2011, to respond to the petition, “[t]o date, FDA has neither granted nor denied the petition and has taken no action to reduce human exposure to mercury from commercial fish.” They request a court order declaring that FDA has violated the Administrative Procedure Act and requiring the agency to issue a decision on their petition within 30 days. The plaintiffs contend that FDA’s current action level for mercury in seafood…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has filed a putative class action on behalf of two named California residents against General Mills alleging that its use of “All Natural,” “Natural,” and “100% Natural” product representations on its Nature Valley® food products is deceptive because they contain high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), high-maltose corn syrup, and maltodextrin and rice maltodextrin. Janney v. General Mills, No. 12-3919 (N.D. Cal., filed July 26, 2012). According to the complaint, these ingredients are not “minimally processed,” yet the defendant purportedly “takes wrongful advantage of consumers’ strong preference for foods made entirely of natural ingredients” with words and images in its marketing and on product labels evocative of the outdoors and nature. While one of the named plaintiffs purchased “natural” food for a daughter with type 1 diabetes and the other sought an all-natural diet for a daughter with ADHD, they do not allege personal…
While a federal court in California has dismissed warranty claims filed under federal law against an ice cream manufacturer sued for allegedly misleading consumers by labeling its products with the phrases “All Natural Flavors” and “All Natural Ice Cream,” most of the plaintiffs’ state law-based claims will proceed. Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., No. 11-2910; Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., No. 11-3164 (N.D. Cal., order entered July 20, 2012). The plaintiffs allege that Dreyer’s and Edy’s ice cream products should not bear labels stating “All Natural Flavors” because they contain between one and five artificial and/or synthetic ingredients, and the company’s Haagen-Dazs ice cream products should not bear labels stating “All Natural Ice Cream” because they contain cocoa processed using a synthetic and/or artificial alkalizing agent. They allege violation of written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; common law fraud; unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices and false…
Seeking to represent everyone who purchased a mahi mahi dish in Sharky’s Woodfired Mexican Grills throughout California, four Los Angeles County residents have filed suit alleging that the menu items do not contain mahi mahi fish as advertised. Chenier v. Sharky’s Franchise Group, LLC, No. 30-2012-00587784 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed July 31, 2012). The plaintiffs claim that they would not have purchased the products had they known the products were not made with mahi mahi. They allege violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and breach of express warranty, and seek disgorgement, restitution, public disclosure, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
According to a news source, a Los Angeles Superior Court has dismissed a putative class action seeking damages against One World Enterprises LLC for allegedly misleading consumers about the nutritional value and hydrating properties of its coconut water product. Shenkman v. One World Enters. LLC, No. BC467165 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., dismissed on July 18, 2012). The court apparently agreed with the defendant that part of the plaintiff’s case involved a product representation that was simply “puffery” and stated that marketing a product’s “superior” hydrating power “is not actionable because consumers are used to hearing advertisers make general boasts and were not born yesterday.” The court dismissed the case without prejudice to give the plaintiff an opportunity to replead state-based fraud and false advertising claims about the product’s allegedly false nutritional label. According to the court, the plaintiff “correctly notes federal law will not preempt his claim if the label…
Organizations representing the interests of Asian Americans have filed suit in a federal court in California against the governor and agency officials seeking a declaration that legislation enacted in October 2011 banning the “possession, sale, offer for sale, distribution, or trade of shark fins” violates their members’ equal protection rights, unlawfully interferes with interstate commerce and preempts federal law, and deprives them of rights, privileges and immunities under the U.S. Constitution. Chinatown Neighborhood Assn. v. Brown, No. 12-3759 (N.D. Cal., filed July 18, 2012). According to the complaint, “Shark fins are used within the Chinese American community to make the traditional dish, shark fin soup. Shark fin soup is a cultural delicacy with origins dating back to the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644 A.D.). It is a ceremonial centerpiece of traditional Chinese banquets as well as celebrations of weddings and birthdays of one’s elders. Shark fin soup serves as a traditional symbol…
A federal court in California has denied the ex parte request of foie gras producers to temporarily halt California’s enforcement of a ban on the sale of any product that is the result of force-feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging its liver beyond normal size. Association des Éleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Québec v. Harris, No. 12-5735 (C.D. Cal., order entered July 18, 2012). Additional information about the challenge to California’s foie gras ban appears in Issue 446 of this Update. The court also established a briefing schedule on the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction that will culminate in an August 29, 2012, hearing. Meanwhile, California restaurateurs have reportedly found ways around the state’s ban. A restaurant on a former military base in San Francisco, now owned by the National Park Service, apparently began offering the dish on its menu, claiming that its location on federal land makes it…
A New York resident has filed a putative class action against Diamond Pet Foods and Amazon.com, seeking medical monitoring for pets that consumed recalled Salmonella-tainted pet food. Cohen v. Schell & Kampeter, Inc., d/b/a Diamond Pet Foods, No. 12-3299 (E.D.N.Y., filed July 2, 2012). Plaintiff Steven Cohen alleges that he fed his dogs Taste of the Wild® brand pet food, purchased from Amazon.com, and that they became ill, vomiting frequently, “which caused damage to Plaintiff’s property.” Seeking to certify a nationwide class and statewide subclass of consumers, the plaintiff alleges breach of implied and express warranty, strict products liability, violations of state consumer fraud laws, negligence, and unjust enrichment. In addition to medical monitoring, the plaintiff seeks actual damages or restitution, attorney’s fees, costs, and interest. A Canadian non-profit representing the interests of foie gras producers, a New York-based foie gras producer and a company that operates restaurants in California have…
