A New Jersey resident from Scotland, who began working in 2000 for seafood company North Landing Ltd. at the invitation of its former owner, has filed a wrongful discharge suit against the company, its new owners and a supervisor claiming that her concerns over the company’s purportedly illegal practices, when brought to the attention of her supervisor, resulted in him verbally berating and slapping her, thus creating a hostile work environment that she could no longer tolerate. Chadwick v. North Landing Ltd., No. L1776-12 (N.J. Super. Ct., Passaic Cty., filed April 26, 2012). Among other matters, the plaintiff alleges that the company processed and sold farm-raised salmon treated for sea lice with Salmosan, a chemical that she claims the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved. She contends that when she brought this to her supervisor’s attention, he told her to “delete computer records showing the fish having been…
Tag Archives New Jersey
The claims process under two settlements reached with the company that makes the hazelnut spread Nutella® is underway, and consumers can recover up to $20, or $4 each for up to five jars purchased during the relevant periods. In re: Ferrero Litig., No. 11-205 (S.D. Cal.) (California class, Aug. 1, 2009 – Jan. 23, 2012); In re: Nutella Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 11-1086 (D.N.J.) (Nationwide class, except California, Jan. 1, 2008 – Feb. 3, 2012). The settlement funds available to both classes total $3.05 million, but if the claims exceed this amount, individual payments “will be reduced proportionately.” Under the settlement agreement, the company, which continues to deny any wrongdoing, will modify its product label and certain marketing statements, create new TV ads, and change the Nutella® website. The company also agreed not to object to a California fee award of $900,000 and New Jersey fee award of $3…
Putative class actions have been filed in New Jersey and California federal courts against Tropicana Products, Inc., alleging that the company misleads consumers by labeling and marketing its orange juice as “100% pure and natural,” when it actually “undergoes extensive processing which includes the addition of aromas and flavors.” Lynch v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., No. 11-07382 (D.N.J., filed December 19, 2011); Lewis v. Tropicana Prods., Inc., No. 12-00049 (E.D. Cal., filed January 6, 2012). Both plaintiffs seek to certify nationwide classes. The New Jersey plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and injunctive and declaratory relief. He requests compensatory, treble and punitive damages; prejudgment interest; restitution; injunctive relief; attorney’s fees; and expenses and costs of suit. The California plaintiff, who also seeks to certify a subclass of California consumers, alleges unjust enrichment; breach of express warranty; violation of the state Consumers…
Seeking to certify a nationwide settlement class, excluding California consumers, in litigation against the company that makes the hazelnut spread Nutella®, two named plaintiffs alleging deceptive product marketing have filed their brief in support of preliminary approval of a class settlement. In re: Nutella Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., No. 11-1086 (D.N.J., brief filed January 10, 2012). According to the plaintiffs, the company has agreed to cease the advertising at issue, begin a revised and corrective labeling and advertising campaign, change its website, and establish a $2.5 million settlement fund. Under the proposed agreement, settlement class members could submit claims for $4 per jar purchased during the class period and recover up to a maximum of $20. Nutella would also apparently agree not to oppose class counsel fees less than $3 million. According to the plaintiffs’ brief, similar litigation pending in California is also being settled. Twelve named plaintiffs in four…
Seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers, a New York resident has filed a lawsuit in a New Jersey federal court, alleging that Smart Balance, Inc. falsely labels its fat-free milks enhanced with omega-3 as “Fat Free” when they actually contain 1 gram of fat per serving. Stewart v. Smart Balance, Inc., No. 11-06174 (D.N.J., filed October 19, 2011). Acknowledging that the nutrition facts label indicates that the products contain 1 gram of fat, the plaintiff nonetheless contends that the front-of-package representations are “intentionally confusing and misleading.” She alleges that she paid more for the company’s products than she would have otherwise paid for alternative milk options because she relied on the “Fat Free” labels, which she contends violate federal labeling rules. Alleging violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment, breach of warranty, and injunctive relief, the plaintiff seeks class certification; compensatory, treble and punitive damages; disgorgement;…
A federal court in New Jersey has refused the request to intervene filed by plaintiffs to a California consumer-fraud lawsuit against the company that makes the hazelnut spread Nutella®. Glover v. Ferrero USA, Inc., No. 11-1086 (D.N.J., decided October 20, 2011) (unpublished). The New Jersey action, like its California counterpart, was filed as a putative nationwide class action; the laws under which the cases were filed and the class periods differ. According to the New Jersey court, the intervenors had no interest in litigating the New Jersey case; rather, their stated intent was to dismiss the case or transfer it to California. The court also noted that while the California Nutella® litigation was filed first, “the actions are not truly duplicative.” The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has refused to consolidate the California and New Jersey actions for pretrial proceedings.
A federal court in California has granted in part the motion to dismiss filed by Arizona Beverages USA LLC, in a putative class action alleging the violation of consumer fraud and false advertising laws due to company representations that its products are “Natural,” “All Natural” and “100% Natural.” Ries v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, No. 10-01139 (N.D. Cal., decided August 25, 2011). The plaintiffs contend that the products are not natural in that they contain high-fructose corn syrup and an artificially produced citric acid. At issue in the defendants’ motion was whether the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded the claims in their first amended complaint under Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). According to the court, the complaint adequately pleaded fraud in connection with the plaintiffs’ allegations arising out of the product labels. The court concluded, “These allegations are not inherently implausible and are sufficient for purposes of Rule 9(b).” The…
The Campbell Soup Co. will change its low-sodium tomato soup labels under a settlement with a class of consumers who sued the company in a New Jersey federal court in 2010, alleging that these products cost more while actually containing about the same level of sodium as the company’s regular tomato soup. Smajlaj v. Campbell Soup Co., No. 10-01332 (D.N.J., preliminary approval granted August 9, 2011). The company will also provide a cash fund of $1.05 million for consumers throughout the United States who purchased the products over a two-year period ending in August 2011. Maximum recovery, depending on which soup was purchased and whether receipts are available, is $10 or $.50 for each can that a class member can show she purchased. The agreement would permit class counsel fees of $350,000; the court has scheduled a final settlement approval hearing for November 29. According to court documents, Campbell will…
A federal court in New Jersey has determined that Pennsylvania and California residents may pursue claims against New Jersey-based Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. in consolidated putative class actions alleging that the company’s BOOST Kid Essentials® beverage did not provide its advertised health benefits for children. Scheuerman v. Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition, Inc., No. 10-3684; Johnson v. Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition, Inc., No. 10-5628 (D.N.J., decided August 1, 2011) (unpublished). So ruling, the court granted in part and denied in part Nestlé’s motion to dismiss. While the court ruled that the California plaintiff may not bring a cause of action under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), because the defendant’s presence in the jurisdiction alone is insufficient under conflict-of-law rules to apply the state’s law, the court did give the California plaintiff the opportunity to amend her complaint to allege consumer fraud under California law. Because the Pennsylvania plaintiff alleged that he…
A New Jersey appellate court has partially reinstated a lawsuit against an Indian restaurant that mistakenly served meat samosas to a group of Hindu vegetarians, who are now seeking compensation for emotional distress and to recover the cost of traveling to India for a purification rite. Gupta v. Asha Enterprises, L.L.C., A-3059-09T2 (N.J. Sup. Ct., decided July 18, 2011). According to the court opinion, plaintiffs notified Moghul Express & Catering Co. of their “strict vegetarian” status and were twice “assured of the vegetarian nature of the food,” which actually contained meat. The complaint alleges that this oversight caused the diners spiritual injury and involved them “in the sinful cycle of inflicting pain, injury and death on God’s [creations], and it affects the karma and the dharma, or purity of the soul.” Although the New Jersey Superior Court initially dismissed the claims of negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, consumer fraud, products…
