- Achieved a significant victory for our client Manischewitz, a leading brand of kosher food products, in a dispute before the New York State Supreme Court. The plaintiff alleged our client excluded him from the koshering process and that Manischewitz products did not meet the Orthodox Union (OU) kashrut standards required to be sold with the OU symbol. The New York State Supreme Court granted Manischewitz and the Orthodox Union’s motion to dismiss all causes of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- Represented an American food and beverage manufacturer in a class action in which the plaintiff claimed the labeling misrepresented the actual ingredients in the product. Our motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice and we later won on summary judgment.
- Successfully negotiated a settlement for out client in a class action alleging the labeling of Free to Eat’s cookies, a retailer gluten and allergy-free baked goods, is false and misleading because it includes “evaporated cane juice” on the list of ingredients.
- Represented Jacqueline's Gourmet Cookies in its sale to a large strategic acquirer.
- Served as counsel for a national beverage supplier in class actions alleging fraud and breach of contract in connection with the marketing and sale of one of its products. The claims in this matter were compromised on favorable terms.
- Represented a pet food manufacturer against a putative class action alleging UCL violations, breach of warranty, unjust enrichment and other claims based on allegedly misleading marketing of pet food, including claims that products used “natural” ingredients. We defeated class certification on all claims in less than nine months following service of the complaint after only minimal discovery.
- Represented an innovative beverage company with a national profile on FDA compliance issues, labeling, promotional activities, and distribution agreements.
- Acted as lead defense counsel for large food manufacturer in nationwide class action alleging false labeling of nutritional information. Successfully settled case on terms very favorable to client.
- Assisted Attune Foods in responding to a CLRA demand letter alleging false and misleading statements on labels of food products brought under California (UCL, FAL, CLRA) consumer protection laws. Settled favorably before lawsuit filed.
- Advise a food manufacturing company on multiple product line contract manufacturing arrangements and negotiated supply and quality agreements.
- Successfully defended a manufacturer against retaliation and whistleblower claims under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and the Occupational Safety and health Act (OSHA), resulting in a dismissal of the claims and a finding of no liability.
- Obtained a $12 million summary judgment motion for a breach of contract related to pet food ingredients.
Mintz helped global alternative investment firm Apollo Global Management successfully resolve 10 cases related to its $1.36 billion tender offer acquisition of gourmet grocery chain The Fresh Market. The cases included a Delaware Chancery Court breach-of-fiduciary-duties suit and federal securities cases.
Mintz negotiated a favorable settlement of two California state court cases for a pet food manufacturer over the company’s alleged violations of California and federal regulations related to nonfunctional slack fill.
Mintz helped a manufacturer of plant-based, non-GMO snacks reach an early resolution of a false advertising lawsuit that challenged the company’s use of the term all-natural. Mintz attorneys have significant experience advising food and beverage clients on packaging and labeling law.
Mintz obtained a dismissal of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action for Hofman Hospitality Group restaurant Lucille’s BBQ without any discovery. The plaintiff claimed a text message about a dinner reservation that contained a link to specials violated the TCPA.
Mintz represented Cava when a former employee claimed she was fired for reporting sexual harassment of other employees. The firm argued the woman was terminated not for filing the report, but because the client believed she had falsified it.