A federal court in Georgia has denied a request to certify a nationwide class of Steak 'n Shake hourly employees in a dispute over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, finding that class members are not similarly situated to the named plaintiffs or to each other. Beecher v. Steak 'n Shake Operations, Inc., No. 11-04102 (N.D. Ga., decided September 27, 2012). The putative class would have involved some 65,000 employees working in more than 400 corporate restaurants in five different U.S. regions. They alleged that restaurant managers were authorized to and did in fact change time records in bad faith and thus did not compensate them for all of their work or paid them less than minimum wage. According to the court, the evidence showed that restaurant managers had a number of legitimate reasons for altering time records. For example, if the clock in/clock out times did not correctly…
Tag Archives Georgia
A Georgia resident has filed a complaint in federal court on behalf of a statewide class of consumers allegedly misled about the purported health benefits of POM Wonderful’s pomegranate products. Templeton v. POM Wonderful, LLC, No. 12-53 (S.D. Ga., filed February 16, 2012). According to the complaint, the company promotes its products “as having special health benefits, including but not limited to, the prevention[,] mitigation, and/or treatment of the following: (a) Atherosclerosis; (b) Blood Flow/Pressure; (c) Prostate Cancer, (d) Erectile Function; (e) Cardiovascular Disease; (f) Reduce LDL Cholesterol; (g) and other age-related medical conditions.” Citing investigations by the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the U.K.’s Advertising Standards Authority, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the plaintiff claims that these promotions are not substantiated by medical evidence. Alleging violations of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment, the plaintiff…
A federal court in Georgia has determined that it has personal jurisdiction over a Michigan food-packaging company that was sued as a third party defendant in litigation over a recalled baby food product. IPN USA Corp. v. Nurture, Inc., No. 11-501 (N.D. Ga., decided December 12, 2011). A Food and Drug Administration investigation apparently concluded that the third-party defendant (Liquid) had violated agency regulations on the manufacture of acidified and acid food products. While the baby food manufacturer (Nurture) allegedly sustained millions in damages in the recall, it was the packaging supplier (IPN) that brought the lawsuit against Nurture for breach of contract. According to the court, Liquid had sufficient contacts with Georgia for the court to exercise jurisdiction over the company. For purposes of packaging Nurture’s baby food, Liquid had purchased a machine, packaging supplies and other equipment from IPN’s Georgia-based entity, which referred a “significant number” of prospective customers…
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld in part a district court ruling that denied migrant workers’ claims that a Georgia onion farmer had improperly withheld the cost of housing and meals from their pay, reducing it below minimum wage. Ramos-Barrientos v. Bland, No. 10-13412 (11th Cir., decided October 27, 2011). While the appeals court agreed with the lower court that the farmer could receive wage credits for meal reimbursements, it reversed the summary judgment that the farmer could receive wage credits for housing provided to the workers. The court also upheld the lower court’s determination that certain fees that third-party recruiters charged the workers in Mexico could not be recovered from the farmer who was unaware of them and had not agreed by contract to pay them. The workers and the Secretary of Labor, as amicus, contended that the farmer was “not entitled to wage credits for the…
A federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) court in Georgia has denied ConAgra Foods’ motion for summary judgment in a case involving claims that tainted peanut butter caused a man’s salmonellosis. In re: ConAgra Peanut Butter Prods. Liab. Litig. (Kidd) v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., MDL No. 1845, No. 07-1415 (N.D. Ga., decided May 4, 2011). Bobby Joe Kidd claimed that after he ate Peter Pan® peanut butter he was hospitalized with abdominal pain and nausea. Blood and urine samples taken during his stay apparently tested negative for Salmonella and other infectious agents. ConAgra relied on the negative tests to argue that Kidd would be unable to show that it was more likely than not that contaminated peanut butter caused his illness. The court disagreed, finding sufficient evidence “to allow a reasonable jury to infer that contaminated peanut butter caused his symptoms.” Kidd’s records “indicate that he ate recalled peanut butter and experienced Salmonella-like…
A Georgia-based poultry farm has reportedly appealed a federal court ruling dismissing libel, slander and product disparagement claims against CBS, which apparently aired a segment on its 60 Minutes program in 2003 about alleged terrorist money laundering involving dead chickens. Mar-Jac Poultry, Inc. v. Katz, No. 03-2422 (D.D.C., dismissal entered March 30, 2011). The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has apparently not yet indicated whether it will hear the appeal. The segment focused on a purported “terrorist hunter” whose actions in ferreting out terrorist activity in the United States apparently led the U.S. government to raid a poultry farm after she claimed that Saudis had purchased it. According to Rita Katz, who appeared on the program in disguise, chicken was the best cover for money laundering because “chicken is one of the things that no one really can track it down. If you say in one year that you lost 10…
A multidistrict litigation (MDL) court has dismissed the claims of 16 plaintiffs who alleged that they or their minor children became ill as a result of eating peanut butter contaminated with Salmonella. In re ConAgra Peanut Butter Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1845 (N.D. Ga., decided September 29, 2010). According to the court, “The best way to show that peanut butter is contaminated with Salmonella is to test the peanut butter itself. The fact that the peanut butter was recalled does not mean that it was contaminated. In fact, most of the recalled peanut butter was free of Salmonella contamination.” Noting that the plaintiffs could also use circumstantial evidence to show that they ate contaminated peanut butter, the court determined that these plaintiffs could not show that the peanut butter they ate was made at the affected plant during the outbreak period (by means of a product code stamped on…
According to a news source, some 120 of those purportedly sickened by Salmonella-contaminated peanut butter and their attorneys should soon begin receiving a share of a $12 million Hartford Insurance Co. policy held by the Peanut Corp. of America. Those sharing the settlement filed claims by October 31, 2009, as part of the company’s bankruptcy proceeding. The outbreak reportedly took the lives of nine people and sickened 700 who apparently ate peanuts and peanut paste traced to a company plant in Blakely, Georgia. See The Columbus Dispatch, February 2, 2010.
ConAgra Foods, Inc. has asked a multidistrict litigation (MDL) court to sever and transfer the claims of 68 plaintiffs from 14 different states in an action (Bowman v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.) recently filed against the company arising out of the purported Salmonella contamination of its peanut butter. In re: ConAgra Peanut Butter Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1845 (N.D. Ga., motion filed November 24, 2009). The motion is similar to one filed earlier in November. Additional details about that motion appear in issue 327 of this Update. While ConAgra does not object to the court retaining jurisdiction over the Bowman claims for purposes of pre-trial proceedings, it asks that the plaintiffs’ claims be severed and transferred for trial because they were improperly joined and “because trial of these claims as a single action is likely to result in undue prejudice to the litigants and confusion to the jury,” which would have to apply…
ConAgra Foods, Inc. has asked a multidistrict litigation (MDL) court to sever and transfer the claims of some of the plaintiffs who filed a lawsuit in October 2009 against the company arising out of the purported Salmonella contamination of its peanut butter. In re: ConAgra Peanut Butter Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1845 (N.D. Ga., motion filed November 10, 2009). The company has also asked the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages, arguing that they have not been sufficiently plead under the new plausibility standard of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 U.S. 1937 (2009). According to ConAgra’s motion, this lawsuit involves five plaintiffs from four different states, raising serious questions of judicial economy and juror confusion, given that evidence is located in four different states and the legal standards of four different states would have to be applied to the claims. The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in the same…
