General Mills Operations, LLC v. Five Star Custom Foods, Ltd.
703 F.3d 1104
8th Cir.2013Background
- Five Star supplied meatballs to General Mills for Progresso soups; delivery occurred Sept 29 and Oct 5, 2007.
- Beef used in the meatballs came from Westland Meat Co., which recalled over 143 million pounds of beef in Feb 2008.
- USDA/F SIS investigated and concluded Westland’s practices violated regulations; recalls were issued and General Mills destroyed affected products.
- General Mills sued Five Star for negligence, breach of contract, and breaches of express and implied warranties; district court granted summary judgment for Mills on contract and for Five Star on warranties.
- Parties stipulated to $1,473,564 in damages and $150,000 in attorneys’ fees; Mills’ cross-appeal regarding fees was dismissed as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Five Star materially breached the contract. | Mills argues breach via nonconforming goods and recall-triggered damages. | Five Star contends terms require compliance with specific laws but disputes prove of breach. | Yes; Five Star breached. |
| Whether the district court properly admitted evidence about compliance with regulations. | Mills relied on public records indicating adulteration to prove breach. | Five Star challenges hearsay; argues only admissible as public records. | Admissible as public-records exception; hearsay objections overruled. |
| Whether recall provisions limit remedies to exclusive recall remedy. | Mills argues damages recoverable under recall and other remedies. | Five Star contends recall clause is exclusive. | Remedies are not exclusive; contract read in context supports recovery for breach. |
| Whether attorney’s fees were properly awarded. | Fees were recoverable under contract for breach. | Doctrine of ejusdem generis not applicable; no contrary ruling. | Yes; contract provision supports awarding attorney’s fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Art Goebel, Inc. v. N. Suburban Agencies, Inc., 567 N.W.2d 511 (Minn. 1997) (remedies must be read in context of entire contract; exclusivity requires clear intent)
- Halla Nursery, Inc. v. City of Chanhassen, 781 N.W.2d 880 (Minn. 2010) (contract terms interpreted in plain meaning; recall provisions context-led)
- Brookfield Trade Ctr. v. County of Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 390 (Minn. 1998) (contract interpretation; multiple remedies)
- Coghlan v. Wellcraft Marine Corp., 240 F.3d 449 (5th Cir. 2001) (breach when goods fail to meet contract specifications)
- Land O’Lakes Creameries, Inc. v. Commodity Credit Corp., 185 F. Supp. 412 (D. Minn. 1960) (measures breach and liability in food goods context)
- Patterson v. Cent. Mills, Inc., 64 F. App’x 457 (6th Cir. 2003) (public records admissible where appropriate; agency findings)
- Beec h Aerospace Servs., Inc. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (1988) (public records/agency findings admissible under Rule 803(8))