In re McCormick & Co., Inc., Pepper Prods. Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig.
| Decision Date | 10 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | MDL Docket No. 2665,Misc. No. 15-1825 (ESH) |
| Citation | 422 F.Supp.3d 194 |
| Parties | IN RE: MCCORMICK & COMPANY, INC., PEPPER PRODUCTS MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION This Document Relates to: All Consumer Cases |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
REDACTED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
This multidistrict consumer litigation against McCormick & Co. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., arises from the sales of black pepper in tins and grinders allegedly containing "nonfunctional slack-fill" not visible to purchasers (the "Slack-Filled Pepper Products"). The Slack-Filled Pepper Products were sold between March 2015 and mid-2016. They include both McCormick-branded products and McCormick-filled private-label brands, such as Wal-Mart's Great Value products. Named plaintiffs are purchasers who claim that the sale of these products violated various state consumer protection statutes and unjust enrichment laws.1
Before the Court is plaintiffs' motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for class certification and appointment of counsel. (Pls.' Mot. for Class Certification, ECF No. 156 ("Class Cert. Mot.").) With respect to their statutory consumer protection claims, plaintiffs seek certification of a multi-state class covering purchasers in 20 jurisdictions (the "Consumer Protection Multi-State Class") or, in the alternative, four single-state classes covering purchasers in California, Florida, Illinois, and Missouri. With respect to their unjust enrichment claims, plaintiffs seek certification of two multi-state classes, covering purchasers in a total of 29 jurisdictions (the "Unjust Enrichment (Restatement) Multi-State Class" and the "Unjust Enrichment (Appreciation) Multi-State Class") or, in the alternative, seven single-state unjust enrichment classes covering purchasers in California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. In addition to opposing class certification, defendants have filed a joint motion to exclude the expert report and opinions of Dr. Armando Levy, plaintiffs' damages expert. (Defs.' Joint Mot. to Exclude the Report and Opinions of Dr. Armando Levy, Aug. 28, 2017, ECF No. 164 ( ).)
For the reasons stated herein, plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' damages expert is denied.
Although plaintiffs' legal claims arise under state law, they rely on the federal definition and prohibition of "nonfunctional slack-fill." "Slack-fill" is defined as "the difference between the actual capacity of a container and the volume of product contained therein." 21 C.F.R. § 100.100(a). "Nonfunctional slack-fill" is defined as "the empty space in a package that is filled to less than its capacity for reasons other than:"
21 C.F.R. § 100.100(a) (emphasis added); see also Misleading Containers; Nonfunctional Slack-Fill , 58 Fed. Reg. 64123-01, 64126 (Dec. 6, 1993) (). Federal law deems "non-functional slack-fill" in "[a] container that does not allow the consumer to fully view its contents" "to be filled as to be misleading," 21 C.F.R. § 100.100(a), which is a violation of the federal law prohibiting the "misbranding" of foods. See 21 U.S.C. § 343(d) ( ).2
Although only a few of the states at issue in this litigation have laws or regulations that expressly prohibit or limit nonfunctional slack-fill,3 the remaining states either incorporate or mirror the definition of "misbranding" in 21 U.S.C. § 343(d),4 or define "misbranding" to include misleading or deceptive packaging.5 In addition, a number of states have consumer protection statutes that define unfair or deceptive acts or practices to include "[r]epresenting that goods ... have ... quantities that they do not have." Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5).6
While there is no private right of action to enforce the federal regulations on nonfunctional slack-fill, consumers in recent years have filed numerous lawsuits seeking to hold manufacturers liable under state law for the sale of products allegedly containing nonfunctional slack-fill. For example, cases have been brought alleging nonfunctional slack-fill in the packaging of candy in cardboard boxes,7 chips,8 cereal,9 pretzels,10 pasta,11 risotto mix,12 canned tuna,13 gum,14 protein powder,15 ice cream,16 cake mix,17 dried fruit,18 and a variety of other food19 and non-food products.20 The present litigation is the first challenge to allegedly nonfunctional slack-fill in spice tins and grinders.
Despite the volume of slack-fill litigation, all of which has been filed as putative class actions, very few have reached the stage of class certification. Many cases have been dismissed for failing to plausibly allege nonfunctional slack-fill or failing to plausibly allege that reasonable consumers would have been misled by the packaging even if there was nonfunctional slack-fill.21
Slack-fill claims have also been dismissed on other grounds,22 remanded to state court,23 stayed,24 or resolved on summary judgment,25 or plaintiffs have decided not to pursue them.26 In several cases, plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims (presumably due to a settlement), frequently with the plaintiff's individual claims dismissed with prejudice, while the class claims are dismissed without prejudice.27 Courts have reached the question of class certification in only six cases - one granted certification,28 two granted certification of a settlement class,29 and three denied certification.30
II. THE PRESENT LITIGATION
Black pepper is the most widely traded spice in the international market, both in terms of quantity and value, and McCormick is the largest manufacturer and leading seller of black pepper products in the United States. (See Second Am. Cons. Class Action Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 128 ("2d Am. Compl."); Declaration of Elizabeth Fegan ¶¶ 10, 12, ECF No. 188-1 ("Fegan Decl."); Expert Report of Dr. Armando Levy ¶¶ 19, 20, ECF No. 188-3 ("Levy Rep.").) It buys black pepper from all over the world and transports it to its processing plants in the United States. (2d Am. Compl. ¶ 28; Levy Rep. ¶ 19 (citing McCormick 2014 Annual Report).) McCormick's processing plants produce both McCormick-branded pepper products and private-label pepper products for major retail chains, including Wal-Mart's Great Value brand. (2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 46; McCormick's Am. Answer to 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 151; Wal-Mart's Am. Answer to 2d Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 46, ECF No. 155; Levy Rep. ¶ 20.) In 2015, McCormick-branded pepper products represented 47% of the U.S. black pepper market, while the private-label pepper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hinton v. Dist. of Columbia
... ... cases or controversies." Conservation Force, Inc. v. Jewell , 733 F.3d 1200, 1204 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ... 1379 (quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co. , 345 U.S. 629, 632, 73 S.Ct. 894, 97 L.Ed. 1303 ... , 144 L.Ed.2d 715 (1999) (quoting Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor , 521 U.S. 591, 612, 117 S.Ct ... In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig. , 287 F.R.D. 1, 29 (D.D.C. 2012), vacated on ... to objective criteria," In re McCormick & Co., Inc., Pepper Prods. Mktg. & Sales Pracs ... ...
-
Johannessohn v. Polaris Indus., Inc.
... ... Jepson v. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisc. , 513 N.W.2d 467, 46970 (Minn. 1994) ; ... varieties of unfair competitionacts or practices which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent." ... In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig. , No. 14-MC-2543 (JMF), 2016 WL 3920353, at *19 ... Purolator Air Filtration Prods. Co. , 23 Cal.4th 163, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 518, 999 ... unpersuasive, particularly given that the sales contracts of some Plaintiffs reference the laws ... See In re McCormick & Co., Inc., Pepper Prod. Mtk'g & Sales Practices ... that never exhibited a defect); Polaris Mktg. I , 364 F. Supp. 3d at 984. Plaintiffs argue ... ...
-
Silver v. Greater Balt. Med. Ctr., Inc.
... ... in related illegal and unfair trade practices. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City denied ... " of $1.00; a shipping fee of $12.23; and sales tax of $31.12. On July 15, 2015, more than nine ... Government Employees Insurance Co. , 376 Md. 72, 88, 828 A.2d 229 (2003). Before ... subclassing plan of its own."); In re McCormick & Company, Inc. , 422 F. Supp. 3d 194, 225 ... ...
-
Tershakovec v. Ford Motor Co.
... ... Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d ... statutes prohibiting deceptive business practices, common law fraudulent concealment claims, and ... 1360 In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig. , 295 F ... 0910 (Prods. Liab.) , 91 So. 3d 785, 789 (Fla. 2012) ... , not just defendant's conduct." In re McCormick & Co., Inc., Pepper Prod. Mktg. & Sales Practices ... ...