The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse employees in Alabama adequately alleged that their employers “encouraged or induced an alien to reside in the United States, and either knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that alien’s residence here was illegal,” thus stating the predicate act needed to bring a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Edwards v. Prime, Inc., No. 09-11699 (11th Cir., decided April 9, 2010). So ruling, the court reinstated the plaintiffs’ RICO claim against the parent company; its Birmingham, Alabama, franchisee; and the franchise owner and operator. The court did not reverse trial court rulings dismissing wage-related claims and claims of discrimination or retaliation. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants knowingly hired and employed illegal aliens, allowing them to work under the names of former Ruth’s Chris employees who were U.S. citizens and providing them with the former…
Tag Archives restaurant
A federal court in Kansas has dismissed a putative class action filed against Applebee’s International, Inc. and Weight Watchers International, Inc., finding that the claims raised under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) were not sufficiently alleged. Shepard v. Applebee’s Int’l, Inc., No. 08-2416 (D. Kan., decided April 7, 2010). Details about the litigation, filed by a different named plaintiff, appear in issue 274 of this Update. The complaint alleged that the companies misrepresent the fat and calorie information in the dishes on the restaurateur’s “healthy” Weight Watchers® menu. The court had previously dismissed the plaintiffs’ state law claims as preempted by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, and sustained in part a motion to dismiss their RICO claims. Thereafter, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the remaining RICO claim, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to allege “racketeering activity” because they did not…
A federal court in Illinois has dismissed putative class claims alleging that Denny’s Corp. fails to inform consumers that some of its menu items contain excessive levels of salt. Ciszewski v. Denny’s Corp., No. 09-5355 (N.D. Ill., decided April 7, 2010). Additional information about the case can be found in issue 318 of this Update. The court determined that the named plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a violation of the state’s consumer fraud statute because he failed to identify any particular deceptive communication generated by Denny’s. Indeed, plaintiff made clear that his claim was based on alleged deceptive omissions. Because Illinois law requires “some communication from the defendant, either a communication containing a deceptive misrepresentation or one with a deceptive omission,” the court ruled that he had “failed to plead the circumstances constituting the fraud with sufficient particularity.” With the fraud claim dismissed, the court also dismissed derivative unjust enrichment…
Comparing fast-food advertising icon Ronald McDonald to Joe Camel, Corporate Accountability International has initiated a campaign calling on McDonald’s Corp. to “Retire Ronald.” The campaign is based on a report, “Clowning with Kids’ Health,” that calls the character “the product of a well-orchestrated and shrewd marketing strategy” that targets those most vulnerable to food-industry marketing—children. The report traces the development of Ronald McDonald, now claimed to be as recognizable as Santa Claus, and notes how the character is even used on report cards in schools. Decrying the “unhealthy food” that the character promotes and the industrial supply chain fast food supports, the report calls on McDonald’s to stop using celebrities or cartoon characters to promote its products and urges individuals to support local efforts to remove food advertising from schools, libraries and playgrounds. Corporate Accountability International is a Boston-based corporate watchdog nonprofit whose advisory board includes nutrition professor Marion Nestle, public…
The U.S. district court judge now presiding over the obesity-related claims in Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp. has ordered the parties to refile a number of documents previously submitted on motions addressing class certification. Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 02-7821 (S.D.N.Y., order entered March 24, 2010). Among the documents the court has requested are the defendant’s motion for an order striking the class allegations in plaintiffs’ second amended complaint and plaintiffs’ cross motion to certify a class and motion for an order further denying the defendant’s motion to strike. Filed in 2002 and appealed twice to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, this litigation seeks damages for the obesity-related health conditions of teenagers who contend they were misled by fast food advertising. Claims that the food consumed in defendant’s restaurants caused the plaintiffs’ health problems are no longer in the case.
Over the past two years, little has taken place in Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., the putative class action litigation brought in 2002 on behalf of obese and overweight teenagers who alleged that the fast food restaurant is responsible for their weight-related health conditions. On March 10, 2010, the case was reassigned to U.S. District Court Judge Donald Pogue. Since Judge Robert Sweet recused himself in 2008 from the case he had heard through two trips to the U.S. Court of Appeals, the matter has been passed to three different judges. Currently pending before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., 02-7821 (S.D.N.Y., filed September 30, 2002).
A federal court in California has dismissed without prejudice some of the claims filed by a food supplier in a dispute over insurance coverage in food-contamination litigation. Nat’l Surety Corp. v. Pacific Int’l Vegetable Mktg., Inc., No. 09-4898 (N.D. Cal., decided March 5, 2010). A fast food restaurant was sued for injuries purportedly linked to foodborne contamination, and it filed a third party complaint against the company that supplied the lettuce which allegedly caused the outbreak. The supplier turned to the lettuce grower’s insurer to defend it under a policy that was supposed to include the supplier as an additional insured pursuant to an agreement between the supplier and grower. The insurer refused to defend the claims, and the supplier sued the agent purportedly responsible for adding the supplier to the insurance policy for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary…
A federal court in Kentucky has determined as a matter of law that a company which tested, developed and approved paper packaging for customers buying KFC Popcorn chicken breached its contract because the containers caught fire while being microwaved. KFC U.S. Props., Inc. v. Paris Packaging, Inc., No. 09-00249 (W.D. Ky., decided February 25, 2010). So ruling, the court granted KFC’s motion for partial summary judgment. Additional details about the lawsuit appear in issue 299 of this Update. According to the court, the parties’ contract specified that the packaging company would be responsible for ensuring the product was safe regardless of any standards, specifications or other information KFC provided. Because it was reasonably foreseeable that customers would microwave their KFC chicken in the paper box in which they took it home, the court held that the defendant breached its contract by providing unsafe packaging that was unfit for its intended…
A putative class action has been filed in a Madison County, Illinois, court alleging that a fast food chain has fraudulently advertised its Super Stacked™ sub sandwiches “as containing ‘double portions of meat’” compared with its standard sandwiches, when they do not have double the meat. Williams v. Kahala Corp., No. 10-L-166 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison Cty., filed February 12, 2010). According to the complaint, while defendant charges a premium for its Super Stacked™ sandwiches, they “do not have double the protein” because “they do not have double the meat.” The plaintiffs allege that a 12-inch BLIMPIE Best™ sandwich has 50 grams of protein, while its Super Stacked™ counterpart “contains only 73 grams of protein.” They also allege that some Super Stacked™ sandwiches have no “regular” counterpart with which consumers can compare. Seeking to certify a class of all persons who purchased a Super Stacked™ sandwich from Blimpie restaurants in…
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has reportedly purchased stock in Jack in the Box Inc. and Steak n’ Shake Co. in an effort to persuade each restaurant chain “to implement the types of basic animal welfare changes many of its competitors have made.” The activist group has criticized both companies for allegedly using “eggs from caged hens, pork from crated pigs, and poultry from producers that use a particularly cruel but standard method of slaughter.” HSUS has purportedly employed similar tactics to influence other establishments, in addition to supporting legislation in Michigan and California that phases out “extreme confinement of certain farm animals.” One HSUS spokesperson also stated that these production methods are at odds with “public opposition to farm animal abuse,” opining that Jack in the Box’s “history with food safety” should make “improving conditions on the factory farm . . . a top priority.” See…
