A Minnesota federal court has ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) when it adopted the New Swine Inspection System (NSIS), which eliminated line speed limits for pork processing. United Food & Com. Workers Union, Local 663 v. USDA, No. 19-2660 (D. Minn., entered March 31, 2021). The court found that the final rule establishing the NSIS "contains no discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the worker safety comments" that it received during the notice-and-comment period. "The only response FSIS gave to the worker safety comments it solicited was to state that it lacked authority to regulate worker safety. In context, the agency appeared to suggest that it wanted to consider the comments but was not legally permitted to do so," the court held. "By offering its lack of legal authority and expertise on worker safety as its only…
Tag Archives Minnesota
An international union and several of its local chapters have filed a lawsuit seeking to compel the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to change its final rule promulgated on October 1, 2019, that eliminates maximum processing speeds and permits processing plants to employ their own health and safety monitors. U. Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 663 v. USDA, No. 19-2660 (D. Minn., filed October 7, 2019). “As thousands of commenters told USDA during the rulemaking process, the Rule will jeopardize the lives and safety of both consumers of pork products and workers like Plaintiffs’ members,” the complaint argues. USDA erroneously dismissed such comments by arguing that it did not have authority to “regulate issues related to establishment worker safety,” the complaint asserts. “For decades, USDA has considered its actions’ impacts on worker safety,” the union argues. “USDA’s failure to consider the impacts of its actions on worker safety…
The Minneapolis City Council has reportedly voted to ban the establishment of new drive-thru facilities within city limits. The ordinance does not affect existing restaurants, and businesses are permitted to alter or expand their drive-thrus. The law reportedly targets carbon emissions caused by idling cars.
American Dairy Queen Corp. has filed a lawsuit challenging W.B. Mason Co.'s application for a “Blizzard” trademark for its bottled water. Am. Dairy Queen Corp. v. W.B. Mason Co., Inc., No. 18-0693 (D. Minn., filed March 12, 2018). Dairy Queen alleges that it trademarked “Blizzard” for milkshakes in 1946 and has extended the mark to ice milk, ice cream, soft serve, machinery and restaurant services. The complaint asserts that the Blizzard marks are “widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of Dairy Queen’s goods and services.” Alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition by false designation, trademark dilution, unfair competition and violation of Minnesota’s deceptive trade practices law, Dairy Queen seeks an injunction barring W.B. Mason from using the Blizzard mark, destruction of packaging and advertising materials, award of profits generated from use of the infringing mark and attorney’s fees.
Watkins Inc., a Minnesota-based company known for its black pepper, has filed a lawsuit against McCormick and Co., Inc., a global purveyor of spices, alleging that McCormick recently began underfilling its pepper containers but continued using the same size of packaging. Watkins Inc. v. McCormick and Co., No. 15-2688 (D. Minn., filed June 9, 2015). The complaint provides photographic comparisons of Watkins and McCormick tins, a photo of McCormick’s 2-ounce tin alongside the 1.5-ounce tin in a store selling each for the same price, and several photos of stores with shelf tags incorrectly listing the previous size but offering the reduced-size product. “McCormick intentionally kept the tin the same size, with the same price, notwithstanding the 25% decrease in ground black pepper fill, in a manner that misleads retailers and consumers,” the complaint asserts. Watkins alleges that McCormick has violated the Lanham Act and several state business practices acts as…
A Minnesota federal court has granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss in a lawsuit alleging that Hormel Food Corp. stole trade secrets and breached contractual agreements in its joint venture to develop new methods of cooking bacon. Unitherm Food Sys. Inc. v. Hormel Food Corp., No. 14-4034 (D. Minn., order entered January 27, 2015). Unitherm alleged that it created the first viable method for pre-cooking sliced bacon—a process using spiral ovens and super-heated steam—and agreed to develop a commercially viable product with Hormel in June 2007. Unitherm asserted that Hormel disclosed its process, which Unitherm had not yet patented, to a rival company in violation of confidentiality agreements, which constituted an appropriation of trade secrets. The court disagreed, finding that Unitherm’s July 2009 patent application precluded its claim of trade secrets because patented processes cannot, by necessity, be trade secrets due to the disclosure of…
A federal court in Minnesota has dismissed a putative class action alleging that General Mills misleads consumers by labeling its Nature Valley products as “Natural” or “100% Natural” when they actually contain highly processed ingredients such as high-fructose corn syrup, high-maltose dextrin syrup and maltodextrin. Chin v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-2150 (D. Minn., decided June 3, 2013). Additional details about the original complaint appear in Issue 453 of this Update. The court dismissed all counts relating to Nature Valley products that the plaintiffs did not purchase, according to their first amended complaint, ruling that they lacked standing to bring such claims. The court dismissed a breach of written warranty claim brought under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act because labeling a product as “100% Natural” is not a written warranty under the law; rather, it is a “product description.” Implied warranty claims under the Act and state law were also dismissed…
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the grant of class certification for some 1,600 Domino’s Pizza delivery drivers in Minnesota, finding that their claims lacked commonality. Luiken v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, No. 12-1216 (8th Cir., decided February 4, 2013). The drivers claimed that Domino’s improperly withheld from them a fixed delivery charge imposed on customer orders. They contended that the charge was in the nature of a surcharge or gratuity under Minnesota law and, as such, must be paid to them. According to the court, liability was based on the objective, reasonable person standard, and what is objectively reasonable from the perspective of the customer “depends on the nature and context of the parties’ bargain.” Because some customers were told by drivers that Domino’s retained the charge and was not part of their tip and because the fixed charge was sometimes within the normal range for a tip,…
A federal court in Minnesota has granted the motion for summary judgment filed by a company whose insurance carrier claimed it was not required to cover the company’s settlement of claims arising from a recall of instant oatmeal purportedly contaminated with instant milk produced at a facility where the Food and Drug Administration “detected insanitary conditions and salmonella.” The Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Main St. Ingredients, LLC, No. 11-533 (D. Minn., decided January 8, 2013). The company had supplied the instant milk to Malt-o-Meal which used it to make instant oatmeal. After the instant milk and downstream products such as the oatmeal were recalled, Malt-o-Meal sued both the supplier and the company that had produced the instant milk. While none of the supplier’s instant milk was found to contain Salmonella, the case ultimately settled for $1.4 million. The insurance company sued the supplier, Main Street Ingredients, for a declaration that…
A federal court in Minnesota has dismissed without prejudice state law-based consumer-fraud claims filed against a company that makes Greek yogurt not by straining it, a process essential to the traditional production of this thickened dairy product, but by adding milk protein concentrate (MPC). Taradejna v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-993 (D. Minn., decided December 10, 2012). So ruling, the court directed the parties to initiate proper proceedings before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The court recites FDA yogurt-related standard-of-identity initiatives since 1981, culminating in a pending 2009 proposal that would permit the use of “any safe and suitable milk-derived ingredient as an optional dairy ingredient in the manufacture of yogurt.” Finding that application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine was appropriate in the matter, the court states, “The underlying issue here is whether MPC is a proper, permitted ingredient in yogurt. The resolution of this question falls squarely within the…
