Alonso v. Bauducco Foods Inc., No. 502017ca012068 (Fl. Circuit Ct. – Palm Beach Cnty.): Putative class action for violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff alleges Defendant advertised its cracker products as being “all natural” despite the fact that the products contain “artificial, synthetic and/or genetically modified ingredients.”
Continue Reading New Filings – November 15, 2017

food-lit-imagePerkins Coie has published its first Food Litigation Year in Review, covering key developments and trends in food litigation for calendar year 2016.  The Year in Review’s key insights include data-driven assessments of how (and where) the plaintiffs’ bar has continued its assault on the food industry in 2016. That data reflect the filing

Consumer Advocacy Grp., Inc. v. Chulada, Inc., et al., No. BC651577: (Cal. Super. Ct. – Los Angeles Cnty.): Proposition 65 action alleging defendants fail to warn consumers that their ground shrimp contains cadmium and cadmium compounds, and lead and lead compounds.

Envtl. Research Ctr., Inc. v. Blackstone Labs, LLC, No. RG17-850885: (Cal. Super. Ct. – Alameda Cnty.): Proposition 65 action alleging Defendant fails to warn consumers that its dietary supplements contain lead and cadmium.

Consumer Advocacy Grp., Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., No. BC651902: (Cal. Super. Ct. – Los Angeles Cnty.): Proposition 65 action alleging Defendants fail to warn consumers that their jarred anchovies contain lead.
Continue Reading New Filings – April 3, 2017

Manemeit v. Gerber Products Co., et al., No. 2:17-cv-00093 (E.D.N.Y.): Putative class action alleging Defendants deceptively labels their “Good Start” infant formula as “the first and only formula whose consumption reduces the risk of infants developing allergies,” when such statement is false. Complaint.

Miller v. Yucatan Foods, L.P., No. BC645421 (Cal. Super. Ct. – Los Angeles Cnty.): Putative class action alleging that Defendant misrepresents the ingredients of its guacamole.

Environmental Research Center, Inc. v. Trevo LLC, No. RG17-845021: (Cal. Super. Ct. – Alameda Cnty.): Proposition 65 action alleging defendant fails to warn consumers that its wellness products contain lead.
Continue Reading New Filings for January 23, 2017

Envtl. Research Ctr., Inc. v. Chosen Foods Inc., et al, No. RG16-798895 (Cal. Sup. Ct. – Alameda Cnty.):  The Court entered the parties’ stipulated consent judgment in this Proposition 65 action alleging the Defendants do not warn that their nutritional health products contain lead.
Continue Reading Court Enters Stipulated Consent Judgment in Proposition 65 Action Over Lead in Dietary Supplements

Consumer Advocacy Grp. v. Olivier Napa Valley, Inc. et al, No. BC580857 (Cal. Super. Ct. – Los Angeles County):  The Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for entry of consent judgment in this Proposition 65 action alleging that Defendants’ raspberry balsamic vinegar products contain lead. The terms of the settlement are: (1) Defendant is permanently enjoined

Mateel Envtl. Justice v. OEHHA, No. RG15754547 (Cal. Super. Ct. – Alameda Cnty.): The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in this action seeking to invalidate the Proposition 65 regulatory safe harbor for lead.  The Court rejected Plaintiff’s assertion that the OEHHA adopted the safe harbor level after erroneously relying on

Environmental Research Ctr. v. Athletic Greens (USA) Inc., No. RG15791200 (Cal. Sup. Ct. – Alameda Cnty.):  In this Proposition 65 action alleging that Defendant’s nutritional health products contain lead, Plaintiff moved for approval of settlement and for entry of consent judgment. The terms of the settlement require Defendant to place a Proposition 65 warning

California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment recently issued to proposed regulations regarding California’s Proposition 65 that, if passed, will impact food and beverage companies, as well as manufacturers of other products sold in California.

First, OEHHA issued proposed regulations regarding what is deemed a “clear and reasonable warning” under Proposition 65.  The regulations provide