The district court judge to whom this obesity-related litigation was reassigned in 2008 has dismissed motions to compel filed by plaintiffs and defendants, but has given the parties leave to renew after the court rules on motions for class certification. Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 02-7821 (S.D.N.Y., filed Sept. 30, 2002). Judge Robert Sweet recused himself from the proceedings following the pre-trial conference, held April 9, 2008, and the matter was reassigned to Judge Sidney Stein in May. The plaintiffs, a putative class of obese and overweight teens, alleged that the fast-food company misled them with deceptive ads. They are seeking damages for obesity-related health problems. Information about the lawsuit has periodically appeared in this Update since it was filed in 2002. It has been appealed twice to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, its issues have been narrowed, and it has been followed closely by consumer advocates and the food…
Category Archives 2nd Circuit
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court ruling that rejected the restaurant industry’s preemption and First Amendment challenge to New York City’s health code provision mandating that certain restaurant chains post calorie information on their menu boards. New York State Rest. Ass’n v. NYC Bd. of Health, No. 08-1892 (2d Cir., decided February 17, 2009). The rule has been in effect since July 2008 and applies to restaurants that are part of chains with at least 15 outlets nationwide. The New York State Restaurant Association contended that the rule was preempted by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act and infringed its members constitutional rights by compelling speech. According to the court, “In requiring chain restaurants to post calorie information on their menus, New York City merely stepped into a sphere that Congress intentionally left open to state and local governments. Furthermore, although the restaurants are protected…
A multidistrict litigation court (MDL) in New York has dismissed putative class claims filed against PepsiCo., Inc. for allegedly misrepresenting the source of its Aquafina® bottled water, “by using a label designed to create the impression that the water came from a mountain source and failing to inform consumers that the true source . . . was public drinking supplies commonly known as ‘tap water.’” In re: PepsiCo., Inc. Bottled Water Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., MDL No. 1903 (S.D.N.Y., decided December 5, 2008). The court determined that plaintiffs’ state-law unfair and deceptive trade practices claims were expressly preempted under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). According to the court, “the FDCA’s statutory framework and regulatory history . . . reveal that the FDA specifically addressed the disclosure of source information and determined, in its expert opinion, that representations of source are immaterial in the context of purified water.”…
A multidistrict litigation (MDL) court in New Jersey has entered an order approving the settlement of claims that pet food contaminated with melamine and cyanuric acid sickened and killed thousands of cats and dogs in the United States. In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1950 (D.N.J., filed November 18, 2008). In its 65-page opinion, the court certified the class for settlement purposes and approved an award of $24 million to the plaintiffs and nearly $6.4 million in attorney’s fees. The court also denied a motion to intervene, overruled several objections and granted a motion to strike a separate motion for attorney’s fees. Pet owners will be eligible for documented economic damages, such as veterinary bills, cremation, burial services, costs of new pets, and healthy pet screenings. Claims without documentation will be paid up to a maximum of $900 for each claimant. If the claims exceed the available funds,…
A federal court in New Jersey has reportedly approved a $24 million settlement that resolves claims for contaminated pet food filed in 80 putative class actions against more than 60 companies. In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1850 (D.N.J., settlement approved October 14, 2008). The claims, which had been consolidated for pretrial proceedings before a multidistrict litigation (MDL) court, arose out of the deaths and illnesses of cats and dogs that consumed pet food with wheat gluten which had been adulterated with melamine in China to boost its protein content. The contamination led to a massive recall in March 2007. Apparently, more than 10,000 pet owners have filed claims; they will reportedly have until November 24, 2008, under the settlement’s terms to obtain up to $900 per animal, even without receipts for pet food or the costs of their pets’ illness and death. No sums will be paid…
According to a news source, a federal court in New Jersey has dismissed claims that the manufacturer of a beverage containing high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) deceived the public by promoting the product as “all natural.” The court apparently based its ruling on federal preemption, leaving it to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to define the terms “natural” and “all natural.” U.S. District Judge Mary Cooper reportedly stated, “This court will not determine that which the FDA, with all of its scientific expertise, has yet to determine, namely how the terms ‘natural’ and ‘all natural’ should be defined and whether either may be used on the label of a beverage containing HFCS. Instead, this court will allow the FDA, which has already set forth specific requirements for what must be included on beverage labels, to decide whether such a determination is necessary and warranted.” The ruling specifically applies to Snapple®…
New York attorney Samuel Hirsch has filed lawsuits against fast food companies on behalf of two classes of plaintiffs who are allegedly obese and have developed diabetes, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol intake, and other adverse health effects from consuming defendants’ products. Barber v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 23145/2002 (N.Y., Super. Ct., filed July 24, 2002); Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 24809/2002 (N.Y. Super. Ct., filed August 22, 2002). The cases involve a class of adult plaintiffs and a class of children. The complaints are being brought on theories of (i) unfair and deceptive practices, (ii) failure to warn, and (iii) negligence in selling products high in fat, salt, sugar, and cholesterol, and in marketing to children, in marketing addictive products, and in enticing plaintiffs to consume larger portions in “value meals” and “meal combos.” According to news sources, the named adult plaintiff, Caesar Barber, 56, did not realize that consumption…
