Pelman v. McDonald's Corp.
Decision Date | 22 January 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 02 CIV. 7821(RWS).,02 CIV. 7821(RWS). |
Parties | Ashley PELMAN, a child under the age of 18 years, by her Mother and Natural Guardian Roberta Pelman, Roberta Pelman, Individually, Jazlyn Bradley, a child under the age of 18 years, by her Father and Natural Guardian Israel Bradley, and Israel Bradley, Individually, Plaintiffs, v. McDONALD'S CORPORATION, McDonald's Restaurants of New York, Inc., McDonald's 1865 Bruckern Boulevard, Bronx, New York, McDonald's 2630 Jerome Avenue, Bronx, New York, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Samuel Hirsch & Associates, New York, NY by Samuel Hirsch, Esq., of Counsel, for Plaintiffs.
Winston & Strawn, New York, NY by Thomas J. Quigley, Esq., Bradley E. Lerman, Esq., Bruce R. Braun, Esq., of Counsel, Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, Chicago, IL by Anne G. Kimball, Esq., Sarah L. Olson, Esq., of Counsel, Harris Beach, LLP, New York, NY, by Judi Abbott Curry, Esq., Brian A. Bender, Esq., of Counsel, Badger & Levings, LLC, Kansas City, KS, by Elizabeth D. Badger, Esq., Theresa Levings, Esq., of Counsel, Balber, Pichard, Battistori, Maldonad & Vander Tuin, New York, NY, by Thomas P. Battistori, Esq., of Counsel, for Defendants.
Defendants McDonald's Corporation ("McDonalds Corp."); McDonald's Restaurants of New York, Inc. ("McDonalds of New York"); McDonald's 1865 Bruckner Boulevard Bronx, New York ("Bruckner Boulevard outlet"); and McDonald's 2630 Jerome Avenue, Bronx, New York ("Jerome Avenue outlet") (collectively "McDonalds") have moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the complaint of class-action plaintiffs Ashley Pelman, Roberta Pelman, Jazlen Bradley, and Israel Bradley. The plaintiffs have cross-moved to remand the case to state court.
This action presents unique and challenging issues. The plaintiffs have alleged that the practices of McDonalds in making and selling their products are deceptive and that this deception has caused the minors who have consumed McDonalds' products to injure their health by becoming obese. Questions of personal responsibility, common knowledge and public health are presented, and the role of society and the courts in addressing such issues.
The issue of determining the breadth of personal responsibility underlies much of the law: where should the line be drawn between an individual's own responsibility to take care of herself, and society's responsibility to ensure that others shield her? Laws are created in those situations where individuals are somehow unable to protect themselves and where society needs to provide a buffer between the individual and some other entity — whether herself, another individual or a behemoth corporation that spans the globe. Thus Congress provided that essentially all packaged foods sold at retail shall be appropriately labeled and their contents described. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, Pub.L. 101-535, 104 Stat. 2353 (Nov. 8, 1990) (the "NLEA"), 21 U.S.C. § 343(q).1 Also as a matter of federal regulation, all alcoholic beverages must warn pregnant women against their use. 27 U.S.C. § 215 ( ); 27 C.F.R. § 16.21. Congress has gone further and made the possession and consumption of certain products criminal because of their presumed effect on the health of consumers.2 Other products have created health hazards and resulted in extensive and expensive class action litigation. E.g., Amchem Products v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997) ( ); In re Diet Drugs (Phentermine, Fenfluramine, Dexfenfluramine) Prods. Liability Litig., 282 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir.2002) ( ); In re Breast Implant Cases, 942 F.Supp. 958, 959-60 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ( ). Public health is one, if not the, critical issue in society.
This opinion is guided by the principle that legal consequences should not attach to the consumption of hamburgers and other fast food fare unless consumers are unaware of the dangers of eating such food. As discussed, infra, this guiding principle comports with the law of products liability under New York law. As Sir Francis Bacon noted, "Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est,"3 or knowledge is power. Following from this aphorism, one important principle in assigning legal responsibility is the common knowledge of consumers. If consumers know (or reasonably should know) the potential ill health effects of eating at McDonalds, they cannot blame McDonalds if they, nonetheless, choose to satiate their appetite with a surfeit of supersized McDonalds products. On the other hand, consumers cannot be expected to protect against a danger that was solely within McDonalds' knowledge. Thus, one necessary element of any potentially viable claim must be that McDonalds' products involve a danger that is not within the common knowledge of consumers. As discussed later, plaintiffs have failed to allege with any specificity that such a danger exists.
McDonalds has also, rightfully, pointed out that this case, the first of its kind to progress far enough along to reach the stage of a dispositive motion, could spawn thousands of similar "McLawsuits" against restaurants. Even if limited to that ilk of fare dubbed "fast food," the potential for lawsuits is great4: Americans now spend more than $110 billion on fast food each year, and on any given day in the United States, almost one in four adults visits a fast food restaurant. Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation 3 (2002) (hereinafter "Schlosser"). The potential for lawsuits is even greater given the numbers of persons who eat food prepared at other restaurants in addition to those serving fast food. See FDA, Food Labeling; General Requirements for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., MDL No.11md2258 AJB (MDD)
...respect; and (3) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the deceptive practice, act or advertisement." Pelman v. McDonald's Corp., 237 F. Supp. 2d 512, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); see also N.Y Gen. Bus. Law § 349 ("Deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerc......
-
Elkind v. Revlon Consumer Prods. Corp.
...respect, and (3) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the deceptive practice, act or advertisement." Pelman v. McDonald's Corp., 237 F. Supp. 2d 512, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (collecting cases). Additionally, a plaintiff must plead reliance on the misleading advertising at the time of p......
-
In re Juul Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.
...respect, and (3) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the deceptive practice, act or advertisement. Pelman v. McDonald's Corp. , 237 F. Supp. 2d 512, 524–25 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). The standard for assessing claims under Sections 349 and 350 are essentially the same. Cline v. TouchTunes M......
-
Leider v. Ralfe
...and (3) that the plaintiff was injured as a result of the deceptive practice, act or advertisement." Pelman v. McDonald's Corp., 237 F.Supp.2d 512, 525 (S.D.N.Y.2003) ("Pelman I"8). To aid in the interpretation of the second element, the New York Court of Appeals has instructed that a decep......
-
The Abolition of Food Oppression
...[ https://perma.cc/YSE6-BGYJ]; Freeman, supra note 29, at 2245 & n.168. 383. See Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., 237 F. Supp. 2d 512, 516, 519, 543 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (granting leave to file an amended complaint); see also Freeman, supra note 29, at 2247–48. 384. See Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp., 3......
-
What's in the Package: Food, Beverage, and Dietary Supplement Law and Litigation—part I
...Mills, 508 F.3d at 14 (milk companies have no duty to warn lactose-intolerant users of dangers of milk); Pelman v. McDonalds Corp., 237 F.Supp.2d 512, 532, 541 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ("It is well-known that fast food in general, and McDonalds' products in particular, contain high levels of cholest......
-
Fast food or fat food: food manufacturer liability for obesity: before the courts and juries extend liability beyond reasonable limits, proactive legislation can balance rights of claimants and the food industry.
...Who Should Pay For Obesitv? SAN FRANCISCO DAILY JOURNAL, February 4, 2002. at A3. (6.) See generally (7.) Pehnan v. McDonalds Corp., 237 F.Supp.2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. (8.) 1 DAVID G. OWEN, M. STUART MADDEN & MARY J. DAVIS, MADDEN & OWEN ON PRODUCTS LIABILITY [section] 8:1 (3d ed. 2000), h......
-
Low-fat Foods or Big Fat Lies?: the Role of Deceptive Marketing in Obesity Lawsuits
...liable for failing to properly warn them of the dangers of these foods.30 With respect to 23. See id. 24. See discussion infra Part I; 237 F. Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (granting leave to amend); Pelman v. McDonald's, No. 02 CV 7821, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15202 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 2003) (d......