A federal court in California has determined that some putative class claims can proceed against a company that allegedly makes false and misleading statements about its guacamole and spicy bean dip products. Henderson v. Gruma Corp., No. 10-04173 (C.D. Cal., decided April 11, 2011). The plaintiffs’ first amended complaint alleged five causes of action for violations of the state’s unfair competition and false advertising laws and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. They claimed that the statements “0 g trans fat,” “with garden vegetables,” made in “the authentic tradition,” “0 g cholesterol,” and “all natural,” as to either or both products were false and misleading. The court first determined that the named plaintiffs, including a woman who recently brought and voluntarily dismissed similar claims against Hostess Brands, Inc., adequately alleged injury-in-fact to establish standing under Proposition 64. They alleged that they (i) “paid more for Mission Guacamole and Mission Bean Dip,…
Tag Archives California
Relying on the first-to-file rule, a federal court in New Jersey has transferred a putative class action alleging false advertising for a Breyers ice cream product to a federal court in California that is considering similar litigation. Catanese v. Unilever d/b/a/ Breyers, No. 10-5755 (D.N.J., decided March 28, 2011). The plaintiffs in a number of cases have alleged that ice cream containing alkalized cocoa cannot be advertised as “all natural” because alkalized cocoa powder is chemically altered. The first such case was filed in a California federal court against Ben & Jerry’s, a Unilever company, in September 2010. A nearly identical action involving Breyers products was also filed in a California federal court three days before the Catanese plaintiffs filed their complaint. According to the court, “Conducting this class action in one forum will benefit both the public and private interests by avoiding duplicative litigation.” Information about a similar case filed in…
The Center for Food Safety, Earthjustice and a number of other public interest groups have sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging its decision to deregulate genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa. Ctr. for Food Safety v. Vilsack, No. 11-1310 (N.D. Cal., filed March 18, 2011). Other plaintiffs include the Cornucopia Institute, Geertson Seed Farms, which successfully challenged a previous agency decision to deregulate GE alfalfa, the Sierra Club, and organizations representing the interests of organic and family farmers. The complaint alleges that the environmental impact statement (EIS) that USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prepared to support its deregulation decision violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Plant Protection Act (PPA) and Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs note that the court-ordered EIS “is the first (and only) EIS APHIS has ever completed for any GE crop, in over fifteen years of approving GE crops for commercial use.” Seeking…
A federal court in California recently dismissed with prejudice a claim against a school district and some of its personnel filed by the parents of a child with an allergy to nuts; they alleged that the defendants threatened harm to the child by refusing to keep him in a nut free environment, which threat was undertaken to discourage the parents from exercising a legal right, i.e., requesting accommodations for him, in violation of state law. McCue v. S. Fork Union Elementary Sch., No. 10-00233 (E.D. Cal., decided February 7, 2011). The parents also alleged harm from an unspecified person giving the child a peanut butter cookie. Because the third amended complaint did not allege all of the facts needed to state a claim under the law and because “[s]erving a child a peanut butter cookie is not an inherently violent act,” the court concluded that the complaint did not allege…
A California court has issued a statement of decision in support of its July 2010 oral ruling vacating a judgment in favor of plaintiffs who alleged they had been rendered sterile from chemicals used on Nicaraguan banana plantations. Tellez v. Dole Food Co., Inc., No. BC 312852 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., statement filed March 11, 2011). According to the court, the plaintiffs’ attorneys “coached their clients to lie about working on banana farms, forged work certificates to create the appearance that their clients had worked on Dole contracted farms, and faked lab results to create the impression that their clients were sterile.” The court also stated that the attorneys “tampered with witnesses,” “threatened witnesses and took other actions to carry out the fraud.” The court held more than 20 hearings, presiding over a year-long evidentiary process, and “reviewed the sworn testimony of 27 protected witnesses describing the fraud at…
A federal court in California has dismissed as preempted state-law claims that Smart Balance falsely labeled and advertised its Nucoa® margarine product; the court also denied the plaintiff’s motion to certify a class. Yumul v. Smart Balance, Inc., No. 10-00927 (C.D. Cal., order entered March 14, 2011). Additional information about the complaint, which has twice been amended after previous rulings on motions to dismiss, appears in Issue 359 of this Update. The defendant argued in its response to the plaintiff’s motion for class certification that the claims were preempted by federal law and thus could not be certified. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had waived this defense by not asserting it in its previous motions to dismiss. According to the court, the defendant did not waive the defense, because it had been preserved in the company’s answer and because the company “is entitled to raise the defense any time prior…
A California resident has filed a putative class action against the companies that make, distribute and sell Four Loko®, a 6- to 12-percent alcoholic beverage with caffeine. Richardson v. Phusion Projects, LLC, No. 11-0456 (S.D. Cal., filed March 4, 2011). The plaintiff alleges that she purchased Four Loko Fruit Punch at $3 per can based on its advertising and labeling, which purportedly failed to warn her “of the particular dangers of drinking a caffeinated beverage with high alcoholic content.” She alleges that she was misled into purchasing a dangerous beverage and claims “injury in fact and a loss of money or property in that she has been deprived of the benefit of her bargain and has spent money purchasing Four Loko at a price premium when it actually had significantly less value than was reflected in the price she paid for it.” The complaint alleges unfair competition, false advertising, violation…
A federal court in California has denied a motion for summary judgment filed by the company that makes YoPlus® probiotic yogurt and certified a class of consumers alleging that it misled them in its product marketing. Johnson v. General Mills, Inc., No. 10-00061 (C.D. Cal., summary judgment denied March 3, 2011; class certification granted March 7). The court disagreed with the company’s attempt to characterize its product statements as “either true or . . . untestable and subjective statements of opinion” or “mere puffing.” According to the court, General Mills sought to “isolate each particular statement or image and divorce it from its full context.” Rather, the court determined that “properly considered in context, General Mills successfully communicated a ‘common message that eating Yo-Plus aids in the promotion of digestive health in ways that eating normal yogurt does not.’” The court reportedly granted class certification from the bench. See Law360, March…
A federal court in California has reportedly fined King Tuna $1.8 million for marking its products with a patent number despite not following the patented process in preparing its fish. King Tuna v. Anova Food, Inc., No. 07-07451 (C.D. Cal., decided February 24, 2011). The patent apparently related to pre-cooling filtered wood smoke before applying it to tuna. King Tuna sued a competitor alleging that the patent had been infringed; the competitor countersued claiming, among other matters, that King Tuna had falsely advertised and falsely marked its products. While most recent litigation involving the false-marking statute involves expired patents, this case apparently involved a valid patent. According to the court, King Tuna’s false advertising and marking “could not have been a mere innocent oversight,” because the company, while claiming that its preservation process involved filtered wood smoke, never pre-cooled the wood smoke “as required by the “619 patent.” To determine…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has issued a notice of its intent to list ethanol in alcoholic beverages and Chinese-style salted fish to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer (Prop. 65). Inclusion on the list requires that products containing these ingredients include label warnings. OEHHA is apparently basing its action on the inclusion of these substances in an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monograph. The agency is requesting comments by April 4, 2011. According to OEHHA, “[b]ecause these are ministerial listings, comments should be limited to the question whether IARC has identified the specific chemical or substance as a known or potential human or animal carcinogen. Under this listing mechanism, OEHHA cannot consider scientific arguments concerning the weight or quality of the evidence considered by IARC when identifying a specific chemical or substance and will not respond to such…
