Perkins Coie is pleased to present its fourth annual Food Litigation Year in Review 2019, offering a summary of the past year’s key litigation outcomes, regulatory developments, and filing data. Using metrics from our proprietary database, developed by our food litigation team in order to track and understand trends in this area, 2019’s Year in Review again reports an increase in class action litigation, with a record-breaking 173 new lawsuits filed. The upward filing trends in the class action landscape are mirrored in other industries and in the prosecution of related claims: putative class actions against the pet food and dietary supplement industries were on the rise in 2019, as were Proposition 65 warning notices.
Continue Reading

Perkins Coie is pleased to present its third annual Food Litigation Year in Review, offering a summary of the year’s key litigation outcomes, regulatory developments, and filing data. Last year, pointing to uncertainty at the appellate level, Perkins Coie predicted continued litigation in 2018. Using metrics from our proprietary database, developed by our food

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

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

Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 14-17480 (9th Cir.):  In an unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district Court’s dismissal on summary judgment of Plaintiff’s claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, but upheld the district Court’s denial of class certification in this closely watched case alleging that the use of the

Torrent v. Ollivier, et al., No. 2:15-cv-02511 (C.D. Cal.): The Court entered an order granting in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss this putative class action for violations of California’s CLRA and UCL, which alleged that Defendants falsely advertised that its goji berries were harvested from the Himalayas, when they, in fact, came from the

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. 

Garrison v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-5222 (N.D. Cal.): The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this putative class action alleging that Whole Foods’ house-brand baked goods are mislabeled “all natural” in violation of California consumer protection statutes because they include “synthetic” ingredients including sodium acid pyrophosphate and maltodextrin. With regard to Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and violation of the CLRA, the Court granted Defendant’s motion, after finding Plaintiffs’ lacked privity with Defendant to bring a contract claim.  The Court disposed of the CLRA claim because Plaintiffs sent the statutorily required pre-suit notice to the wrong entity and never cured the defect. 
Continue Reading

In re: Simply Orange Juice Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, No. 4:12-md-2361 (W.D. Mo.):  The Court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment in this consolidated multi-district class action alleging violations of multiple states’ consumer protection statutes as well as various common law claims. The consolidated cases are based on the allegation that Defendant

Brown v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., No. 11-cv-03082 (N.D. Cal.): The Court granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs in this putative consumer class action asserting violations of California CLRA, UCL, and COPA based on allegations that Defendants sold two lines of cosmetics using the word “organic” on their labels, although they contained less than