Top Defense Results: Jones et al. v. ConAgra Foods Inc.

Last June, Hogan Lovells US LLP attorneys persuaded a federal judge to deny class certification in a food labeling lawsuit that could have a significant impact on similar cases in the Northern District of California's "Food Court."

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco ruled the three plaintiffs failed to show harm or proof of how misbranding on a product adversely affected them.

Breyer wrote in the order, "there is a lack of cohesion among the class members here, both because consumers were exposed to label statements that changed over time and from product to product..."

The judge also wrote that consumers can perceive these health-conscious phrases differently. The defense emphasized the harm factor from the start.

"In many instances, plaintiffs do not plead even that the challenged statements were false, and in no case do they adequately plead causation or injury - required elements of each of their consumer protection claims," wrote lead counsel Robert B. Hawk in a motion to dismiss.

The products in question include Hunt's canned tomato products, Pam cooking sprays and Swiss Miss hot cocoa. Hunt's labels on products such as diced tomatoes read "100% natural" but contained citric acid and calcium chloride.

Also with labels boasting all-natural ingredients, the cooking spray had undisclosed petrochemicals like propane and butane. Swiss Miss hot cocoa powder labels promised cocoa was a natural source of antioxidants. Plaintiffs argued these labels were misleading and deceptive. Jones et al. v. ConAgra Foods Inc., CV12-01633 (N.D. Cal., filed April 2, 2012).

Plaintiffs' attorney Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates said it was more difficult to certify a class because ConAgra kept changing the labels on its products after the lawsuit was filed.

Hogan Lovells representatives declined to comment.

- KIBKABE ARAYA