On August 2, 2017, Perkins Coie will be hosting a 60-minute webcast reviewing the key developments and trends in food litigation. This webcast reflects our active monitoring of food litigation filings in jurisdictions nationwide and will include an analysis of the key legal developments in cases involving claims challenging the labeling, composition, and regulatory compliance

Brumfield, et al. v. Trader Joe’s Company, No. 1:17-cv-03239 (S.D.N.Y.): Putative class action for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the deceptive acts or practices and false advertising provisions of the GBL, California’s CLRA, FAL, and UCL, and raising claims for breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant falsely markets and sells its Trader Joe’s Black Truffle Flavored Extra Virgin Olive Oil as being flavored by actual black truffles, when it is flavored by an industrially-produced, chemically-derived perfume known as 2,4-dithiapentane.

Jessani, et al. v. Monini North America, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-03257 (S.D.N.Y.): Putative class action for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the deceptive acts or practices and false advertising provisions of the GBL, California’s CLRA, FAL, and UCL, and raising claims for breach of express and implied warranties, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant falsely markets and sells its Monini White Truffle Flavored Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Monini Black Truffle Flavored Extra Virgin Olive Oil as being flavored by actual black truffles, when it is flavored by an industrially-produced, chemically-derived perfume known as 2,4-dithiapentane.Continue Reading New Filings – May 25, 2017

Tamar Kaloustian v. Navitas LLC., No. CGC-16-553700 (Cal. Super. Ct. – San Francisco Cnty.): Proposition 65 action alleging defendant Navitas LLC does not warn about lead in Navitas Naturals Organic Mulberry Berries. Plaintiff is represented by the KJT Law Group.  Complaint.

Guerra v. Hero Nutritionals, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-04563 (E.D.N.Y.): Putative class action asserting

Swearingen v. Santa Cruz Natural, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-04291 (N.D. Cal.): The Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The order dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff’s claims asserting violations of California’s CLRA, FAL, and UCL, as well as its claims for breach of express warranty, breach of implied

Victor v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-2976 (N.D. Cal.) and Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow Inc., No. 3:12-cv-2204 (N.D. Cal.): United States District Judge William H. Orrick granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, disposing of this putative class action asserting violations of California’s UCL, CLRA, and FAL, and raising a claim for unjust enrichment. 

Hu v. Golden Orchid, Ltd. et al¸ No. 1:16-cv-2234 (E.D.N.Y.): putative class action asserting violations of multiple states’ consumer protection statutes and raising claims for breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.  Plaintiff claims Defendants misleadingly market their jarred preserved food products (e.g., picked cucumber and chili radish) as “preservative free,” although the products

Balser et al v. The Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-5604 (C.D. Cal.):  The Court issued an order denying Defendant’s motion to stay this putative class action alleging that the use of the word “Natural” on some of the labels of Defendant’s “Alba Botanics” line of personal care products is misleading because the products contain synthetic ingredients.  Defendant sought to stay the action pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of Jones v. ConAgra Foods and Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, which are scheduled for oral argument in July 2016.
Continue Reading Court Denies Motion to Stay Personal Care Products Case Pending Jones v. ConAgra