Alisha Burgin

Subscribe to Alisha Burgin's Posts
Contact:Read more about Alisha Burgin

Last week, the California Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff’s suit seeking to require Proposition 65 acrylamide based cancer warnings on 59 popular breakfast cereals was pre-empted by federal nutrition policies aimed at encouraging Americans to consume more whole grains and by FDA letters stating that any warnings should be deferred given the uncertain science on the risks to humans of acrylamide in food. This conflict pre-emption ruling should help convince courts in other contexts that state warning requirements should defer to more carefully articulated federal policies.

Acrylamide, which forms in many foods during high-temperature cooking (e.g., frying, roasting, baking), has been a Proposition 65 listed substance since 1990, though its presence in food was not discovered until 2002. As the FDA has stated, there is much uncertainty if the levels of acrylamide in food pose any risk to humans.
Continue Reading Notable Ruling: Precedent-Setting Proposition 65 Pre-emption Decision Involving Breakfast Cereal

Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action Involving Healthfulness of Extra Virgin Coconut Oil

Traction v. Viva Labs, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-02772 (S.D. Cal.): The Court issued an order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss this putative class action for violation of California’s CLRA, UCL, FAC and breach of express and implied warranties. Plaintiff alleges Defendant misleadingly labels and markets its Organic Extra Virgin Coconut Oil as healthy, and as a healthy alternative to butter and other cooking oils, despite that it is actually inherently unhealthy and a less healthy alternative. The Court denied the motion based on lack of standing and declined to dismiss Plaintiff’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA claims based on the reasonable consumer test.  The Court also denied the motion with respect to Plaintiff’s UCL unlawful claim, and breach of express and implied warranty claims.
Continue Reading Rulings, Orders, Settlements – October 9, 2017

Kramarz v. JR Carlson Laboratories Inc., 2017-CH-12609 (Ill. Super. Ct. – Cook Cnty.): Putative class action raising claims for breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment, and alleging violations of various states’ consumer protection statutes, including the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Plaintiff alleges Defendant misleadingly markets its sports supplement called “L-Glutamine” as helping people recover from exercise and giving energy for muscle growth, when in  fact the product’s ingredients have been found to be ineffective for these purposes.
Continue Reading New Filings – October 2, 2017

Court Denies Motion to Dismiss in False Advertising Action Involving Iced Tea

Martin, et al. v. TradeWinds Beverage Company, No. 2:16-cv-09249 (C.D. Cal.): The Court entered an order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss this putative class action for violations of California’s CLRA, UCL, FAL, and for breach of express warranty. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants falsely advertised that its iced tea is labeled as “All Natural,” when in fact, it contains artificial coloring, caramel color.

The Court rejected Defendant’s argument that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of express preemption, conflict preemption, field preemption, and implied preemption on the grounds that the FDA, vested by Congress with the sole authority to regulate the use, manufacture, and labeling of color additives, has the first and last word on the issue of color additives. Similarly, the Court rejected Defendant’s argument that its compliance with the FDA’s labeling requirements for caramel coloring provides it a safe harbor under California law. The Court also found that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a misleading statement. Finally, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the First Amendment protects its commercial speech.
Continue Reading Rulings, Orders, Settlements – September 18, 2017

Hensel v. Andrea’s Fine Foods, Inc., et al., No. 1722-CC01421 (Mo. Cir. Ct. – St. Louis Cnty.): Putative class action alleging violations of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act and raising claims of negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff claims that Defendants falsely marketed their pie and pie crust products as “all natural,” although the products contain xanthan gum, a synthetic substance.
Continue Reading New Filings – June 19, 2017

Stolz v. Fage Dairy Processing, S.A., No. 1:14-cv-3826 (E.D.N.Y.): The Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part Defendant’s partial motion to dismiss in this putative class action alleging consumers were misled by Defendant’s “Total 0%” packaging on its yogurt products because consumers believe the product lacks fat, sugar sodium, cholesterol, calories or carbohydrates. First, the Court dismissed…

Pye v. Fifth Generation, Inc., No. 4:14-cv-493 (N.D. Fla.): The Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the only remaining claim—breach of express warrant —in this false labeling putative class action involving Tito’s Handmade Vodka.  The claim pertained solely to the representation that Tito’s is made in “an old fashioned pot still.”  Undisputed evidence…

Torrent v. Ollivier, et al., No. 2:15-cv-02511 (C.D. Cal.):  The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for class action certification in this putative class action asserting violations of California’s CLRA and UCL, based on the allegation that Defendants false represent that their goji berries were harvested from the Himalayas, when they, in fact, came from the Ningxia province of China. …
Continue Reading Court Rejects Repeat Plaintiff’s Unsupported Bid for Class Certification in False Labeling Action Involving Goji Berries

Jones v. Nutiva, Inc., No. 4:16-cv-711 (N.D. Cal.): The Court issued an order granting in part Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in this putative class action alleging violations of California’s UCL, CLRA, and FAL, based on the claim that Defendant misleadingly labels and markets its coconut oil product as “inherently healthy, and a healthy alternative to butter and other oils,” when in fact it is inherently unhealthy and a less healthy alternative.  …
Continue Reading Court Grants-in-Part and Denies-in-Part Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in False Labeling Action Involving Coconut Oil

In re Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litig., No. 1:15-md-02645 (S.D.N.Y.): The Court entered an order granting in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss this consolidated putative class action asserting violations of multiple states’ consumer protection laws and raising claims for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation.  Plaintiffs allege Defendants deceptively marketed its snack food products with labels including the words “healthy,” “all natural,” and/or “non GMO.”…
Continue Reading Court Grants Defendants’ Motion, Staying Consolidated Action Involving “Healthy and All Natural” Claim on Primary Jurisdiction Grounds