Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal lawsuits are mounting against Tropicana, alleging that its “natural” orange juice is as much a product of laboratory science as of squeezing. Products billed as pure, natural, 100% juice are extensively processed, stored and supplemented with additive flavors before sale, plaintiffs allege in cases consolidated in New Jersey as In re: Tropicana Orange Juice Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2353.
“Mass marketed orange juice such as Tropicana's cannot be fresh squeezed as fresh squeezed juice is unstable and has a short shelf life,” according to Dennis Lynch of Oakland, the first plaintiff to file suit. “It is not natural orange juice. It is instead a product that is scientifically engineered in laboratories, not nature, which explains its shelf-life of more than two months.”
That engineering allegedly includes pasteurization, mixing of differently flavored oranges from distant regions, removal of air naturally present in the juice, long-term storage lasting a year or more, and the addition of engineered “flavor packs” to make up for taste and aroma that is lost during these processes.
The Suit
The plaintiffs contend that Tropicana falsely advertises its juice as totally pure and natural because of consumer demand for natural products, and charges a premium over less-expensive juices made from concentrate, even though the Tropicana products are no fresher. They allege violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and other causes of action.
Tropicana, a subsidiary of Purchase, NY-based PepsiCo Inc., says through a spokesman: “Our juice is safe and nutritious and Tropicana remains committed to offering great-tasting 100 percent orange juice with no added sugars or preservatives. We take the faith that consumers place in our products seriously and are committed to full compliance with labeling laws and regulations.”
Background
In May, lawyers for Tropicana and for plaintiffs in six pending suits argued before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Washington, DC, urging centralization. The plaintiffs were split between the District of New Jersey and the Middle District of Florida, while Tropicana was amenable to either venue.
On June 11, the panel ' U.S. District Judges W. Royal Furgeson Jr., Barbara Jones, Charles Breyer and Paul Barbadoro ' opted for New Jersey, citing efficiency, common questions of fact, and the convenience of the parties and witnesses. The state, the judges noted, is home to “several third-party flavoring companies that may be relevant to this litigation.”
The panel also found the New Jersey district “has the resources to devote to this litigation,” assigning the cases to U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh, who is not overseeing any other multidistrict litigation at this time.
One plaintiff, in a suit in the Northern District of Alabama, requested that the multidistrict litigation include suits making similar claims against other orange-juice distributors, such as Simply Orange and Minute Maid, subsidiaries of the Coca-Cola Co., and Wal-Mart, Winn Dixie and Target, which sell generic not-from-concentrate brands. The panel declined to consolidate those matters, finding that “industry-wide centralization likely will result in inefficiencies and delay.”
The multidistrict panel also centralized the litigation against the Coca-Cola defendants in the Western District of Missouri. Since then, eight more suits against Tropicana have been filed, all assigned to Cavanaugh in New Jersey. Counsel for both parties either would not comment or did not return calls at the time of this writing.
David Gialanella is a reporter for the New Jersey Law Journal, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter.
Federal lawsuits are mounting against Tropicana, alleging that its “natural” orange juice is as much a product of laboratory science as of squeezing. Products billed as pure, natural, 100% juice are extensively processed, stored and supplemented with additive flavors before sale, plaintiffs allege in cases consolidated in New Jersey as In re: Tropicana Orange Juice Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2353.
“Mass marketed orange juice such as Tropicana's cannot be fresh squeezed as fresh squeezed juice is unstable and has a short shelf life,” according to Dennis Lynch of Oakland, the first plaintiff to file suit. “It is not natural orange juice. It is instead a product that is scientifically engineered in laboratories, not nature, which explains its shelf-life of more than two months.”
That engineering allegedly includes pasteurization, mixing of differently flavored oranges from distant regions, removal of air naturally present in the juice, long-term storage lasting a year or more, and the addition of engineered “flavor packs” to make up for taste and aroma that is lost during these processes.
The Suit
The plaintiffs contend that Tropicana falsely advertises its juice as totally pure and natural because of consumer demand for natural products, and charges a premium over less-expensive juices made from concentrate, even though the Tropicana products are no fresher. They allege violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and other causes of action.
Tropicana, a subsidiary of Purchase, NY-based
Background
In May, lawyers for Tropicana and for plaintiffs in six pending suits argued before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Washington, DC, urging centralization. The plaintiffs were split between the District of New Jersey and the Middle District of Florida, while Tropicana was amenable to either venue.
On June 11, the panel ' U.S. District Judges W.
The panel also found the New Jersey district “has the resources to devote to this litigation,” assigning the cases to U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh, who is not overseeing any other multidistrict litigation at this time.
One plaintiff, in a suit in the Northern District of Alabama, requested that the multidistrict litigation include suits making similar claims against other orange-juice distributors, such as Simply Orange and Minute Maid, subsidiaries of the Coca-Cola Co., and
The multidistrict panel also centralized the litigation against the Coca-Cola defendants in the Western District of Missouri. Since then, eight more suits against Tropicana have been filed, all assigned to Cavanaugh in New Jersey. Counsel for both parties either would not comment or did not return calls at the time of this writing.
David Gialanella is a reporter for the New Jersey Law Journal, an ALM sister publication of this newsletter.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.