You must remember all of the snide remarks about plaintiffs Ashley Pelman and Jazlen Bradley (and their lawyers) who were suing McDonald's claiming that the company's misrepresentations had led to a parade of horribles, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and elevated cholesterol. That suit was dismissed in 2003 -- oddly, by a judge named "Sweet" -- but it is back again after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (look under "Decisions=>Recent Decisions" for the text of the case) found that Judge Sweet erred in holding that a misrepresentation claim under the relevant New York statute required more evidence of causation.

When initially dismissing the suit, Judge Sweet wanted to know:

What else did the plaintiffs eat? How much did they exercise? Is there a family history of the diseases which are alleged to have been caused by McDonald’s products? Without this additional information, McDonald’s does not have sufficient information to determine if its foods are the cause of plaintiffs' obesity, or if instead McDonald’s foods are only a contributing factor.

According to the Second Circuit, Judge Sweet was too hasty: "This ... is the sort of information that is appropriately the subject of discovery, rather than what is required to satisfy the limited pleading requirements of Rule 8(a), Fed. R. Civ. P." So McDonald's was right in casting the decision as "procedural," but I cannot imagine that they are too happy to have the plaintiff's lawyers digging through their files.

Of course, this decision ties in nicely with Christine's post on the Academy Awards because the documentary "Super Size Me" was nominated for an an Oscar. When asked about the Second Circuit's decision, filmmaker Morgan Spurlock said, "For me it's a tremendous decision.I think we've reached a point where people and the judicial system are starting to realize that there is a separation between personal and corporate responsibility, that corporations do have a line they have to uphold when it comes down to what they present to people." Actually, the decision doesn't say anything about the merits of the case, so Spurlock is just blowing hot air. I suppose that's better than blowing his lunch.

Franchising | Bookmark

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200d835437f6b69e2

Links to weblogs that reference McDonald's Litigation Reinstated: