** Do we have a new “sue-me” State for Food and Class Litigators? ** As we blogged about in the past the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance in 2016 that it is false or misleading to describe sweeteners made from sugar cane as “evaporated cane juice” (ECJ). Guidance for Industry: Ingredients Declared as Evaporated Cane Juice. As anticipated this has opened the way forward for cases against companies using the ECJ term, including of course those cases where the matter had been stayed under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. Much of this ECJ litigation continues to be focused in state and federal courts in California.
That said, plaintiffs are also filing in other venues. Missouri for one is becoming increasingly well-known as a plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction following full throated verdicts in product liability cases, such as the $70 million talcum powder case. And food labeling suits are increasingly being filed as well in this new “sue me” State (in particular, St. Louis City – the 22nd Judicial Circuit, has been called one of “worst places in the nation for a corporation to be sued” and “the new hot spot for litigation tourists.”) In a recent win for the Plaintiff’s bar with respect to food litigation and labeling claims, a Missouri state court of appeals recently issued an opinion rejecting defenses successful in sister courts. In Murphy v. Stonewall Kitchen, LLC, 503 S.W.3d 308, 310 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) brought under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) the plaintiff (and putative class representative) alleged Stonewall Kitchen misrepresented that its cupcake mix was “all natural” when it contained leavening agent sodium acid pyrophosphate (SAPP). The trial court, relying on the decision in Kelly v. Cape Cod Potato Chip Co., 81 F.Supp.3d 754 (W.D. Mo. 2015), granted the motion reasoning that because the ingredient label clearly disclosed the presence of SAPP, it was not plausible that a consumer would believe the “all natural” representation on the product including the SAPP. The Court of Appeals reversed, expressly rejecting the ingredient list defense.
Since Murphy, at least 16 cases have recently been filed in St. Louis on the topic of evaporated cane juice alone. The targeted defendants include manufacturers of Pacqui Corn Chips (Dominique Morrison v. Amplify Snack Brands Inc., No. 4:17-cv-00816-RWS (E.D. Mo.), Jelly Belly jelly beans(Jason Allen v. Jelly Belly Candy Company, No. 4:17-cv-00588 (E.D. Mo.), and Bakery on Main granola (Callanan v. Garden of Light, Inc., No. 4:17-cv-01377 (E.D. Mo.). The cases do appear connected, many having the same plaintiff’s counsel. It is likely too early to call St. Louis the new “food court” – we’ll monitor it throughout the year though to see if it is a “flash in the pan” or not.Share this: