Читать книгу Food Regulation - Neal D. Fortin - Страница 240

1 4.7. The Pelman Exception. Considering that Pelman was dismissed, and no other obesity lawsuits advanced so far, why have obesity lawsuits captured the public imagination? Over 20 states have passed “hamburger shield” laws to ensure that restaurants cannot be sued for making someone fat. Why is there such a concern about these suits?

2 4.8. Prevention of Pelman‐type actions. How can a company “immunize” itself against Pelman‐type lawsuits?

3 4.9. Follow‐up on Pelman.McFat I: The plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on August 22, 2002. The court dismissed the original complaint, but granted leave to amend the complaint. Pelman v. McDonald's Corp., 237 F.Supp.2d 512 (S.D.N.Y.2003).McFat II: On February 19, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and McDonald's filed a motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the complaint in its entirety with prejudice. Pelman ex rel. v. McDonald's Corp., No. 02 Civ. 7821, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2003 WL 22052778 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).McFat III: Appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge) granting defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The Circuit Court held that the district court incorrectly dismissed plaintiffs’ claims under New York General Business Law § 349. The “district court nonetheless dismissed the claims under § 349 because it concluded that ‘[p]laintiffs have failed, however, to draw an adequate causal connection between their consumption of McDonald's food and their alleged injuries.’ Pelman II, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15202, at *30.” … “This, however, 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.” The Circuit Court allowed some claims and remanded to the District Court. Pelman v. McDonald's Corporation, 396 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2005).McFat IV: McDonald's brought a motion pursuant to Rule 12(e), for a more definite statement of Plaintiffs' claims. McDonald's motion was granted in part and denied in part. Pelman v. McDonald's Corp., 396 F. Supp. 2d 439 (Oct. 24, 2005).McFat V: Motion to dismiss denied. District Court says plaintiffs have stated a claim. Pelman ex rel. v. McDonald's Corp., —F.Supp.2d—2006 WL 2663214 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2006).McFat VI: Settlement and parties stipulate for dismissal. 2011 WL 1230712 (S.D.N.Y.) (Feb. 25, 2011).