Silber v. Barbara's Bakery, Inc.
950 F. Supp. 2d 432
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Silber and Moro filed related proposed class actions against Barbara's Bakery, alleging misleading All Natural claims from Sept. 21, 2006 through case conclusion.
- Court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on May 23, 2013 after hearing oral argument and post-argument briefing.
- Barbara's Bakery markets Puffins cereals with packaging and advertising claiming All Natural since 1971, while products contain GMOs and other ingredients plaintiffs consider synthetic or unnatural.
- Plaintiffs contend FDA guidance, consumer expectations, and GMO definitions render All Natural representations false and misleading, allegedly deceiving consumers for a premium.
- Plaintiffs seek immediate removal of All Natural labeling or a nationwide recall/reformulation; defendant[] argues such relief is improper absent irreparable harm and given monetary remedies.
- Court applies Rule 65 standards, considering irreparable harm, likelihood of success, balance of hardships, and public interest; notes pending related Trammell settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irreparable harm required for injunction | Irreparable harm exists due to deceptive advertising harming consumers. | No irreparable harm; money damages available suffice. | Plaintiffs failed to prove irreparable harm; damages adequate |
| Presumption of irreparable harm in consumer false advertising | Irreparable harm presumed in false advertising cases under statute and some cases. | No presumptive irreparable harm in consumer false advertising; delay defeats presumption. | Presumption not established and destroyed by delay; none of the exceptions apply |
| Money damages as adequate relief | Damages insufficient to remedy deceptive All Natural labeling; ongoing consumer injury. | Monetary relief adequate; injunctive relief inappropriate when damages are available. | Money damages adequately compensate; injunction denied |
| Balance of hardships | Product labeling remains deceptive; recall or removal is necessary to stop harm. | Recall or nationwide alteration would be oppressive and burdensome; not warranted absent irreparable harm. | Balance favors defendant; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. NRDC, 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (injunctions require likelihood of irreparable harm and balance of equities)
- Tough Traveler, Ltd. v. Outbound Products, 60 F.3d 964 (2d Cir. 1995) (presumption of irreparable harm in trademark cases can be overcome by delay)
- Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entertainment, Inc., 60 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 1995) (delay can undermine urgency for preliminary relief; presumption not automatic)
- Marcy Playground, Inc. v. Capitol Records, Inc., 6 F.Supp.2d 277 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (long delays between suit and motion undermine irreparable harm presumption)
- Intl. Dairy Foods Ass’n v. Amestoy, 92 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 1996) (irreparable injury defined as injury not compensable by money damages)