A proposed slack-fill class action against Harry & David LLC was dismissed after the parties voluntarily dismissed the action. Brown v. Harry & David LLC, No. 17-0999 (S.D.N.Y., stipulation filed May 22, 2017). The stipulation did not explain the reason for dismissal but stipulated that it was dismissed “with prejudice against the Defendant.” The plaintiff had alleged that 10-ounce containers of Moose Munch Milk Chocolate, Dark Chocolate, Classic Caramel and Cinnamon Maple Pecan popcorn mix were underfilled by as much as 43 percent. Issue 636
Tag Archives New York
Five Guys has moved to dismiss an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complaint from a blind plaintiff allegedly unable to use the burger chain’s website, arguing that the plaintiff cannot prove she was denied access to a “place of public accommodation” because the statute is limited to physical facilities. Marett v. Five Guys Enters, No. 17-0788 (S.D.N.Y., memorandum filed May 15, 2017). The plaintiff points to a federal circuit split on the issue and has asked a New York federal court to follow the Second Circuit, which has held that the ADA guarantees “more than mere physical access” and that the “website is a service of the physical location.” The plaintiff claims that Five Guys’ website, which allows online ordering in addition to general restaurant and menu information, is inaccessible to blind patrons despite the existence of “readily available technological solutions.” Issue 635
New York City is reportedly considering a bill that would require curbside recycling of expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) containers. The city’s Sanitation Department is currently under a court mandate to develop a plan to collect and clean EPS containers. New York City previously attempted to ban EPS containers in 2013, but a court invalidated the prohibition after a challenge by several food companies, supermarkets and foodservice businesses. Additional details on the decision and the city’s appeal appear in Issues 579 and 583 of this Update. See Huffington Post, May 4, 2017; New York Post, May 7, 2017. Issue 634
Two putative class actions allege that Trader Joe’s “Black Truffle Flavored” olive oil and Monini’s “White Truffle Flavored” olive oil are flavored with synthetic chemicals rather than truffles. Brumfield v. Trader Joe’s, No. 17-3239 (S.D.N.Y, filed May 2, 2017); Jessani v. Monini N. Am., No. 17-3257 (S.D.N.Y., filed May 2, 2017). The plaintiffs argue that the products are sold for significantly more—34 percent more for Trader Joe’s and 459 percent more for Monini—than olive oil without additional flavoring. Claiming violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state consumer protection statutes, the plaintiffs seek class certification, an injunction, damages, restitution and attorney’s fees. Issue 633
Wise Foods, Inc. is facing a projected class action claiming the company’s potato chip bags have more than double the amount of slack fill as its major competitors’ bags. Alce v. Wise Foods, Inc., No. 17-2402 (S.D.N.Y., filed April 3, 2017). The plaintiffs claim that bags of 21 varieties of Wise’s Potato Chips, Kettle Cooked Potato Chips and Ridgies can contain as much as 67 percent slack fill, while the company’s own Dipsy Doodles Corn Chips contain only about one-third slack fill. For alleged violations of New York’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, false advertising laws, the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act and unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs seek class certification, an injunction, damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 630
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. won decertification of a class action comprising more than 500 management trainees in 37 states when a federal court ruled that there were too many differences in the trainees’ ability to perform managerial duties, causing the action to fail the predominance test. Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., No. 12-8333, (S.D.N.Y., order entered March 29, 2017). Seven named plaintiffs won conditional class certification in June 2013, after which 516 additional plaintiffs opted in. The plaintiffs, who worked as “apprentices,” were temporary workers training for positions as restaurant general managers. The complaint alleged apprentices were classified as exempt and illegally denied overtime even if they spent most of their time on nonmanagerial tasks such as preparing food or serving customers, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state labor laws. However, the court found that the plaintiffs’ testimony contained too much conflicting information about the apprentices’…
Eatsa, a fast-food chain featuring high-tech ordering and automated service, faces a putative class action alleging its restaurants are inaccessible to the blind. Am. Council for the Blind, v. Keenwawa, Inc., No. 17-2096 (S.D.N.Y., filed March 23, 2017). Eatsa customers place orders through mobile apps or kiosks in the restaurants, then swipe a credit card to pay; the customer name then appears on a screen next to a wall of food-delivery “cubbies.” When an order is ready, an LCD screen lights up and displays the customer’s name, and the customer must tap a particular corner of the cubby to open it and retrieve the order. The complaint alleges that Eatsa failed to configure either its mobile app or kiosks to use audio technology, rendering the restaurant inaccessible to the blind or those with low vision. Although Eatsa staffs each restaurant with one or two human “hosts” to help customers, the…
A New York federal court has dismissed a putative class action against Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. alleging the burrito chain violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misrepresentations about the company’s response to food-borne illnesses linked to its stores. Ong v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 160141 (S.D.N.Y., order entered March 8, 2017). The court has granted the plaintiffs, led by Metzler Investment GmbH and Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis, leave to amend. Chipotle’s stock price dropped in 2015 after outbreaks of foodborne illnesses, including norovirus, E. coli and Salmonella, were linked to its stores. As a result, Chipotle profits declined by 95 percent in 2016 as compared to the year before. The plaintiffs alleged that Chipotle and three of its executives misled shareholders and the public in the statements and reports it released about the outbreaks, although Chipotle predicted poor performance in…
The widow of a Vermont man who died after eating rawmilk cheese allegedly contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes has filed suit against the manufacturer of the cheese, Vulto Creamery. Friedman v. Vulto Creamery LLC, No. 17-0283 (N.D.N.Y., filed March 10, 2017). Vulto issued a recall of its Ouleout, Miranda, Heinennellie and Willowemoc raw-milk cheeses in March 2017 after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration identified Ouleout as the source of a Listeria outbreak that began in September 2016. The complaint asserts that multiple people became ill or died after eating Vulto’s Ouleout. For alleged strict liability, breach of warranty, negligence and negligence per se, the plaintiff is seeking damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 627
A consumer has filed a projected class action alleging Newman’s Own, Inc. misleadingly markets its pasta sauce products as natural despite containing citric acid. Wong v. Newman’s Own, Inc., No. 16-6690 (E.D.N.Y., filed November 30, 2016). The complaint asserts the company “deceptively used the term ‘natural’ to describe a product containing ingredients that have been either extensively chemically processed or fundamentally altered from their natural state and thus cannot be considered ‘minimally processed.’” The plaintiff admits “there is not an exacting definition of ‘natural’ in reference to food,” but cites the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a decision from the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2005 Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book to support his definition. For alleged violations of New York’s consumer-protection statutes, the plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, damages, an injunction and attorney’s fees. Issue 625
