The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a district court’s dismissal of claims filed by a 76-year-old woman who alleged that she was seriously burned when trying to remove the lid from a cup of tea she purchased at Starbucks. Moltner v. Starbucks Coffee Co., No. 09-4943 (2d Cir., decided November 3, 2010). The court issued a non-precedential summary order to affirm the grant of defendant’s summary judgment motion. According to the court, the district court correctly excluded the testimony of plaintiff’s experts because they were unreliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 standards. In this regard, the court stated, “[w]ithout the testimony of her expert witnesses, Moltner’s claims fail because there is no way for a reasonable juror to determine, with respect to her defective design claim, whether the risks posed by the product’s design outweighed its utility, or, with respect to her negligence claim, whether Starbucks failed to…
Tag Archives tea
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has notified the presidents of the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group and Unilever, Inc. warning them that their green tea products are misbranded because they make nutritional or health-related claims in violation of federal law. Specifically, FDA takes issue with antioxidant claims used to promote Canada Dry Sparkling Green Tea Ginger Ale® and the cholesterol-lowering claims used to promote Lipton Green Tea 100% Natural Naturally Decaffeinated®. According to FDA, ginger ale, as a carbonated beverage, is a snack food that may not be fortified, and therapeutic claims make green tea a drug requiring the agency’s pre-marketing approval. The letters call for corrective action and a response.
A federal court in New Jersey has reportedly stayed for six months consumer fraud litigation against the company that makes Arizona Iced Tea® beverages and has asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine whether high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) qualifies as a “natural” ingredient. Coyle v. Hornell Brewing Co., No. 08-2797 (D.N.J., stay order entered June 15, 2010). Claiming that these beverages are deceptively marketed as “100% Natural” despite containing HFCS, the plaintiff alleges violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, unjust enrichment and common-law restitution, and breach of express and implied warranties. The court issued the stay rather than dismiss the putative class action outright as requested by the defendants on the basis of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. According to a news source, the court acknowledged that “categorizing HFCS as either natural or artificial for the purpose of food and beverage labeling does not fall within…
A federal court in California has denied a motion to dismiss putative class claims that Arizona Beverage Co. deceptively labels its products as “100% Natural,” “All Natural,” or “Natural,” despite using high-fructose corn syrup as an ingredient. Hitt v. Arizona Beverage Co., LLC, No. 08-809 (S.D. Cal., order entered February 4, 2009). The complaint also alleges that those beverages with fruit in the name are deceptively labeled because they “do not contain any substantial amount of the fruit named on the label.” The defendants sought to dismiss claims that they violated consumer fraud statutes by contending that they are expressly and impliedly preempted under federal law. The court summarily ruled that the plaintiff’s claims were not expressly preempted because they do not fall within any of the express preemption provisions of the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act. The court also ruled that the claims were not impliedly preempted because (i) the…
