ST. LOUIS (Legal Newsline) – Lawyers hoping to cash in on a booming field of litigation in a new way want their lawsuit over dog food ingredients heard in the Missouri court that became a hotspot for Roundup weed-killer and talcum powder cases.
Attorneys Daniel Orlowsky and Adam Goffstein filed a motion to remand their lawsuit against Nestle Purina back to St. Louis state court. The defendant had removed it to federal court earlier this year.
The case concerns the alleged presence of glyphosate in Purina products. Glyphosate is the controversial chemical at the center of Roundup cases that allege it causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, despite the fact that the federal government has said that it does not.
Juries convinced that it does have handed out massive verdicts in San Francisco, and Bayer recently reached an agreement to settle a significant portion of the 125,000 lawsuits against it. The settlement talks delayed the first Roundup trial in St. Louis.
The City has also become a focus for plaintiffs lawyers suing Johnson & Johnson over the alleged presence of asbestos in talcum powder. Under weight of this litigation, the company recently decided to stop selling Baby Powder in the U.S.
Lawyers spend millions on television ads in the St. Louis area hoping to find plaintiffs who will lead them to the next big verdict, like the eye-popping $4 billion verdict in talc litigation that is now under appeal.
The dog food lawsuit was brought under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and alleged no violation of specific federal laws. Purina removed it to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which gives federal courts jurisdiction over class actions in which more than $5 million is in question.
The plaintiffs attempted to amend their lawsuit before Purina could remove the case to federal court. Purina says the plaintiffs tried to defeat removal by “inserting a sham allegation” that the proposed class is made up of Missouri citizens and not Missouri purchasers or residents.
That wording would invoke the local controversy exception to allow the case to be heard in state court, as at least two-thirds of the class would be Missouri citizens.
Plaintiffs say the amended petition was filed in time and with notice. Purina says it wasn’t.
“Once Plaintiffs’ weak attempt at forum-shopping is rejected, there is no question that the narrow exceptions to the exercise of jurisdiction under CAFA do not support remand of this case,” lawyers for Purina wrote.
“Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden… to supply evidence that two-thirds or more of their proposed class of Missouri residents are also Missouri citizens.
“Further, Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is not a local controversy, but rather involves the nationwide manufacture and sale of pet food and the comprehensive federal regulatory requirements governing food labeling and food safety.”
As to the glyphosate allegations, Purina says the alleged levels in its products are 1,000 times below the safe limits established by federal agencies.