Legal Proceedings | 6 Months Ended |
Oct. 27, 2013 |
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] | ' |
Legal Proceedings | ' |
Note 11. Legal Proceedings |
Except as set forth below, there have been no material developments in the Company’s legal proceedings since the legal proceedings reported in the 2013 Annual Report. |
|
Commercial Litigation Involving the Company |
On April 22, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Langille, et al. v. Del Monte) alleging false and misleading advertising under California’s consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs allege the Company made a variety of false and misleading advertising claims including, but not limited to, implying that its refrigerated fruit products are “fresh” and “natural.” The complaint seeks certification as a class action and damages in excess of $5.0 million. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. On May 1, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion to relate this case to the Kosta v. Del Monte matter. The Company filed a Joinder in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion on May 6, 2013. The Court ordered the cases related in an Order on May 15, 2013. The parties filed a Joint Stipulation to consolidate these cases on June 3, 2013 and the Judge granted this Order on June 5, 2013. The Kosta and Langille plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 11, 2013. The Company filed its Answer on June 28, 2013. The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. |
On April 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated employees in Superior Court of California, Alameda County (Montgomery v. Del Monte) alleging, inter alia, failure to provide meal and rest periods and pay wages properly in violation of various California wage and hour statutes. On May 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint. The Court granted the parties’ Application to Transfer to Kings County on June 14, 2013. Mediation has been scheduled for March 20, 2014. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. |
On January 31, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (Harmon v. Del Monte) alleging that Milo’s Kitchen chicken jerky treats (“Chicken Jerky Treats”) and Milo’s Kitchen Chicken Grillers Recipe home-style dog treats contain “poisonous antibiotics and other potentially lethal substances.” Plaintiff seeks restitution and damages not to exceed $75,000 per class member and the aggregated claim for damages of the class not to exceed $5.0 million under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The complaint also alleges the Company continued to sell its Chicken Jerky Treats in Jackson County, Missouri after it announced its recall of the product on January 9, 2013. The complaint seeks certification as a class action. The Company successfully removed this case to federal court on March 12, 2013. On April 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Class Action Petition against the Company. The Company filed its Motion to Transfer to the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 19, 2013 and its Motion to Stay Pending the Motion to Transfer on April 25, 2013. The Motion to Stay was granted the same day it was filed. On May 6, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Transfer. The Company filed its Reply in Support of its Motion to Transfer on May 23, 2013. The Court denied the Company’s Motion to Transfer on July 22, 2013. The Company filed its Answer on August 13, 2013 and discovery has commenced. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. |
On September 6, 2012, October 12, 2012 and October 16, 2012, three separate putative class action complaints were filed against the Company in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Langone v. Del Monte, Ruff v. Del Monte, and Funke v. Del Monte, respectively) alleging product liability claims relating to Chicken Jerky Treats. Specifically, the complaints allege that Plaintiffs’ dogs became ill as a result of consumption of Chicken Jerky Treats. The complaints also allege that the Company breached its warranties and California’s consumer protection laws. Each of the complaints seeks certification as a class action and damages in excess of $5.0 million. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. On December 18, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a motion to relate and consolidate the Langone, Ruff and Funke matters. The Company agreed that the cases are related but argued in its response that they should not be consolidated. The Court ordered the cases are related in an Order on January 24, 2013. In the Langone case, the Company filed a Motion to Transfer/Dismiss on February 1, 2013. Plaintiff in the Langone matter voluntarily dismissed his Complaint without prejudice on February 21, 2013 and re-filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 21, 2013. The Company filed its Motion to Dismiss in the Langone case with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on August 2, 2013. The individual claims in the Langone case were settled for a de minimus amount, and a stipulation to dismiss with prejudice was filed on November 25, 2013. On April 9, 2013, the Court transferred Ruff and Funke to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania but denied without prejudice Defendant’s motions to consolidate and dismiss. On April 23, 2013, the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss in Ruff and Funke with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and its Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss in both cases on June 3, 2013. The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. |
|
On July 19, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Mazur v. Del Monte) alleging product liability claims relating to Chicken Jerky Treats. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s dog became ill and had to be euthanized as a result of consumption of Chicken Jerky Treats. The complaint also alleges that the Company breached its warranties and Pennsylvania’s consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and damages in excess of $5.0 million. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. On August 3, 2012, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Motion to Consolidate the previously filed two similar class actions against Nestle Purina Petcare Company, owner of the Waggin’ Train brand of chicken jerky treats, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under the federal rules for multi-district litigation (“MDL”). Plaintiff’s Motion also sought to include the case against the Company in the proposed MDL consolidation as a “related case.” On September 28, 2012, the Court denied the MDL Motion. The case will now proceed in the jurisdiction in which it was originally filed. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Commence Limited Discovery on the subject of the voluntary recall of Chicken Jerky Treats on January 25, 2013. The Company filed its response opposing the Motion on February 8, 2013. The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion on March 12, 2013; thus, discovery is stayed until the Court rules on the Company’s Motion to Dismiss, which was filed on September 24, 2012. On May 24, 2013, the Judge in the matter issued a Report and Recommendation stating that the Motion to Dismiss be granted as to Plaintiff’s claim for unjust enrichment and denied in all other respects. The Company filed its Objections to the Report and Recommendation on June 7, 2013. The Court issued an Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on June 25, 2013. The Court denied the Company’s Motion for Reconsideration on July 8, 2013. The Company filed its answer on August 2, 2013. The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. |
On August 16, 2013, the Langone, Ruff, Funke and Mazur cases were consolidated. |
On April 5, 2012, a complaint was filed against the Company in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Kosta v. Del Monte) alleging false and misleading advertising under California’s consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks certification as a class action and damages in excess of $5.0 million. On June 15, 2012, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 6, 2012, negating the Company’s Motion to Dismiss. In its amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges the Company made a variety of false and misleading advertising claims including, but not limited to, its lycopene and antioxidant claims for tomato products; implying that its refrigerated products are fresh and all natural; implying that Fresh Cut vegetables are fresh; and making misleading claims regarding sugar, nutrient content, preservatives and serving size. The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company filed a new Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on July 31, 2012. The Motion to Dismiss was denied on May 15, 2013. Plaintiff moved on November 5, 2012 to seek application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel in this matter based on the jury’s finding in the Fresh Del Monte Inc. v. Del Monte case. The Company’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Application of Collateral Estoppel was filed on January 17, 2013. Plaintiff’s Reply was filed on February 21, 2013. The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion on May 17, 2013. The Court in Langille ordered these two matters related in an Order on May 15, 2013. The parties filed a joint stipulation to consolidate these cases on June 3, 2013 and the Judge granted this Order on June 5, 2013. The Kosta and Langille plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint on June 11, 2013. The Company filed its Answer on June 28, 2013. The Company cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. |
On September 28, 2011, a complaint was filed against the Company by the Environmental Law Foundation in California Superior Court for the County of Alameda alleging violations of California Health and Safety Code sections 25249.6 et seq. (commonly known as “Proposition 65”). Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Company violated Proposition 65 by distributing certain pear, peach and fruit cocktail products without providing warnings required by Proposition 65. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys’ fees. Trial commenced on April 8, 2013 and closing oral arguments were heard on May 16, 2013. The Judge issued his final decision on July 31, 2013, finding that the Defendants proved their case under the Proposition 65 safe harbor defense, therefore the Company currently does not need to place Proposition 65 warning labels on the applicable food products. The Company will continue to deny these allegations and vigorously defend itself. The Plaintiff filed its appeal on September 24, 2013. The Defendants filed their Notice of Protective Cross Appeal on October 9, 2013. The Company cannot at this time estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability. |