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

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

Iglesias v. Ferrara Candy Co., et al., No. 3:17-cv-0849 (N.D. Cal.): Putative non-functional slack-fill class action for violation of California’s CLRA, FAL, and UCL. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misleads consumers about the amount of “Jujyfruits” brand candy inside their opaque, cardboard packaging.

Anestis v. Harvest Beverage Group, LLC, et al., No. 17-52286 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. – Westchester Cnty.): Putative class action for deceptive practices, false advertising, and fraud. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant markets and sells its “Juisi” brand juice products as “raw and cold-pressed,” when the products have been processed and heated through a high-pressure treatment.

Tsuchiyama v. Taste of Nature, Inc., No. BC651252 (Cal. Super. Ct. – Los Angeles Cnty.): Putative non-functional slack-fill class action for violation of California’s CLRA, alleging that Defendant misled consumers about the amount of candy inside its packaging.
Continue Reading

McCartney v. Whole Foods Market California Inc., et al., No. CGC-16-555096 (Cal. Super. Ct. – San Francisco Cnty.): Proposition 65 action alleging Defendant failed to warn consumers its Himalayan Bulk Goji Berries contain lead.

Scholder v. Ebro North America, et al., No. 2:16-cv-6002 (E.D.N.Y.): Putative class action alleging Defendant advertises and promotes its

Fonseca v. Goya Foods, Inc., No. 5:16-cv-02559 (N.D. Cal.): The Court entered an order granting in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss this putative class action for breach of express and implied warranties, breach of the implied warranty of fitness, unjust enrichment, and violations of California’s CLRA, UCL, FAL, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud, which alleged that

Environmental Research Center Inc. v. BPI Sports LLC, No. RG-16-830792 (Cal. Super. Ct. – Alameda Cnty.): Proposition 65 action alleging Defendant failed to warn consumers its food products contain lead.

Benson v. Wheat Montana Farms, Inc., No. RIC-1611718 (Cal. Super. Ct. – Riverside Cnty.): False advertising class action. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant advertises

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

Berni, et al. v. Barilla S.P.A., et al¸ No. 1:16-cv-4196 (E.D.N.Y.): Putative class action asserting a violation of New York GBL 349 and raising a claim of unjust enrichment, based on the claim that Defendants misleadingly market their “Whole Grain” and “Protein Plus” varieties of pasta by packaging them in boxes that are the

Cumming v. Betterbody Foods & Nutrition LLC, No. 37-2016-19510-CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct. – San Diego Cnty.):  Putative class action alleging violations of California’s UCL, CLRA, and FAL, and raising claims for breach of warranty (express and implied merchantability).  Plaintiff contends 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.  Complaint.
Continue Reading