New York and New Jersey residents have filed a putative nationwide class action with two statewide subclasses against General Mills, Inc. in a Minnesota federal court, alleging that the company has violated federal and state consumer fraud laws by marketing its Nature Valley snack bars as “100% Natural” when they contain high-fructose corn syrup and other non-natural ingredients. Chin v. General Mills, Inc., No. 12-2150 (D. Minn., filed August 31, 2012). The plaintiffs also allege that the products contain highly processed high-maltose corn syrup and the texturizer maltodextrin. They allege that they relied on the company’s marketing and advertising and purchased its products “believing them to be 100% natural,” but sustained “injury in fact and lost money as a result of General Mills having misrepresented the Nature Valley Products.” According to the complaint, General Mills incorporates the “100% Natural” claim into its primary branding of the Nature Valley products and…
Tag Archives Minnesota
A federal court in Minnesota has determined that General Mills Operations, LLC was entitled to an award of prejudgment interest of 10 percent per year from the date it provided a written notice of claim to the company that supplied it with contaminated beef products subject to a recall in 2008. Gen. Mills Operations, LLC v. Five Star Custom Foods, Ltd., No. 10-15 (D. Minn., decided February 24, 2012). According to the court, the only matters in dispute in this contract action were whether General Mills’ May 27, 2008, letter informing the defendant that it had incurred losses of at least $1.4 million constituted a “written notice of claim” under Minnesota’s prejudgment interest statute and the appropriate interest rate to apply. While the letter indicated that costs could continue to accrue and did not include evidentiary support, it did demand prompt payment of $1.4 million “in full settlement of this…
Without disclosing any settlement details, Hormel Foods Corp. and a Netherlands-based company have secured a court order dismissing trademark infringement claims involving the labels for canned meat products SPAM® and Prem®. Hormel Foods, LLC v. Zwanenberg Food Group (USA), Inc., No. 11-00774 (D. Minn., order entered November 1, 2011). Additional information about the case appears in Issue 388 of this Update. Hormel brought the action, contending that the defendant had violated the Lanham Act by selling Prem canned meat with a copycat label using Hormel’s distinctive label colors. According to a news source, Prem filed a counterclaim, alleging that the two color label is not distinctive or protectable and that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office improperly registered the trademark in May 2011. See Law360, November 1, 2011.
A Minnesota appellate court has ruled, as a matter of first impression, that “a trespass action can arise from a chemical pesticide being deposited in discernable and consequential amounts onto one agricultural property as the result of errant overspray during application directed at another.” Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Oil Co., Nos. A10-1596 and -2135 (Minn. Ct. App., decided July 25, 2011). The plaintiffs were organic farmers who alleged that the defendant, a commercial pesticide applicator, repeatedly sprayed adjacent farms on windy days, in violation of the law, resulting in contamination of their crops from drifting chemicals. Despite the plaintiffs’ specific requests that the defendant avoid overspraying pesticide onto their fields when treating adjacent fields, the defendant contaminated their crops in 1998, 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2008, causing them to sell their products at lower prices or destroy some crops, and forcing them to take acreage out of production…
Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton (D) has vetoed legislation (House File 264/ Senate File 160) aimed at giving fast-food chains civil immunity if consumers gain weight after consuming their products. “Unfortunately, this bill provides to companies that manufacture, distribute, or sell food and nonalcoholic beverages civil immunity, except for: ‘any other material violation of federal or state law applicable to the manufacturing, marketing, distribution, advertising, labeling, or sale of food, if the violation is knowing and willful,’” Dayton said in his May 27, 2011, veto. “That requirement of being ‘knowing and willful’ creates too broad an exemption from liability, according to legal experts with whom I consulted.”
A Minnesota appeals court has reportedly decided a dispute over workers’ compensation deductibles in favor of a pork processing company’s insurance carrier in litigation arising from injuries to employees exposed to the mist from pig brain tissue. Quality Pork Processors Inc. is apparently considering whether to appeal the ruling to the state supreme court. According to counsel for the company, the matter involves a contractual dispute and has no effect on benefit payments to those infected while working on or near the line called the “head table.” They apparently used compressed air to remove pigs’ brains and were diagnosed with an unusual neurological disease that causes symptoms including weakness, fatigue, confusion, and seizures. The pork processor contends that the contract language addressing how deductibles were calculated is ambiguous and disagreed that each accident should be decided separately. See The Austin Daily Herald, April 14, 2011.
Hormel Foods, LLC has filed a complaint in a Minnesota federal court against a company that also makes a canned meat product, alleging that the company is infringing Hormel’s SPAM® trademark, which consists of yellow lettering on a blue background. Hormel Foods, LLC v. Zwanenberg Food Group (USA), Inc., No. __ (D. Minn., filed March 30, 2011). The defendant allegedly began selling its product in October 2010 in a can with yellow labeling on a blue background. When Hormel sent a cease and desist letter, the company allegedly switched to a new design, white on a red background. Thereafter, the defendant resumed using the yellow on blue background label for products shipped to the Philippines and Japan. According to the complaint, Hormel has produced 7 billion cans of SPAM® products, making the brand “a famous American icon. Its timelessness has earned it roles in films, a fan club and a…
A number of Minnesota-based apple growers have filed a complaint against the regents of the University of Minnesota and others claiming that exclusive and limited licensing agreements pertaining to the cultivation and sale of a new apple variety violate federal and state competition and restraint of trade laws. Aamodt Apple Farm, Inc. v. Regents, U. Minn., No. __ (Minn. Dist. Ct., Hennepin Cty., filed June 16, 2010). According to the complaint, the SweeTango®, a cross between the Honeycrisp™ and Zestar!™ varieties, was developed with the use of state funding through the university’s apple-breeding program. One grower allegedly has an exclusive license to grow the apple and may license others to grow it on its behalf. The agreements allegedly limit the number of trees that can be planted and where and how the apples can be sold. The plaintiffs allege unreasonable restraint of trade in commerce; establishment, maintenance and use of a…
A Minnesota company that produces cheese has filed a complaint in federal court against an ingredients and flavorings company, alleging that it supplied a flavoring ingredient with phenolic compounds that “caused the cheese in which it was used to have a taste repugnant to certain of the customers who consumed the cheese.” Bongards’ Creameries v. Kerry Ingredients & Flavours, No. 10-2058 (D. Minn., filed May 14, 2010). According to the complaint, flavoring company representatives agreed that the cheese contained unacceptable levels of “off” flavors but refused to pay the cheese maker’s losses in excess of $1.3 million associated with the recall of 800,000 pounds of “contaminated cheese.” Alleging breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose and breach of contract, the plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, attorney’s fees and costs.
Cargill, Inc. has reportedly responded to a $100 million lawsuit by admitting that a beef patty it manufactured contained E. coli and caused plaintiff Stephanie Smith’s debilitating injuries. While not contesting strict liability, the company is denying that it was negligent. Its suppliers apparently certified that the product had been tested for E. coli and that all the tests were negative. The company also reportedly included in its response that its products are inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and that federal law requires meat products to be labeled with warnings that meat may contain bacteria that will cause illness if not properly cooked. Smith, who is confined to a wheelchair and was profiled in a New York Times article, is represented by food lawyer William Marler. He was quoted as saying, “Never in my 23 years have I seen a food company admit liability out of the box…
