{"id":2092,"date":"2025-03-19T11:32:56","date_gmt":"2025-03-19T15:32:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=2092"},"modified":"2025-03-19T11:38:21","modified_gmt":"2025-03-19T15:38:21","slug":"a-not-so-sweet-opinion-for-chocolatiers-as-judge-remands-child-labor-tied-case-back-to-state-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2025\/03\/19\/a-not-so-sweet-opinion-for-chocolatiers-as-judge-remands-child-labor-tied-case-back-to-state-court\/","title":{"rendered":"A Not So Sweet Opinion For Chocolatiers As Judge Remands Child Labor-Tied Case Back To State Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Rebecca Bjork, and Anna Sheridan<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Duane Morris Takeaways: <\/em>\u00a0<\/strong>On March 13, 2025, in International Rights Advocates v. Mars Inc. et al., No. 1:24-CV-00894 (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2025), \u00a0Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled<\/a> that the lawsuit filed by International Rights Advocates (IRA) against Mars Inc., Cargill Inc., and Mondelez International Inc. was not properly removed as it did not meet the \u201camount in controversy\u201d prong of diversity citizenship and could not be aggregated. At the same time, the Court denied IRA\u2019s Motion for Attorneys\u2019 Fees and Costs, finding that the removal was not objectively unreasonable, as there had not yet been any \u201c\u2019clear, controlling case law from the D.C. Circuit on non-aggregation in the DCCPPA [D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act] context.\u201d Id. at 20. The decision melted away the companies\u2019 hopes of dodging local jurisdiction and set the stage for a potentially bittersweet legal battle.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

IRA filed this lawsuit in 2023, claiming that Mars, Cargill, and Mondelez sugarcoated their efforts to prevent child labor in their cocoa supply chains, and mislead consumers about the ethical sourcing of their chocolate products. IRA then filed an Amended Complaint alleging only misrepresentation in violation of the DCCPPA, invoking the private attorney general or representative-action provision, which authorizes a public interest organization to bring an action challenging an unlawful trade practice on behalf of itself and the \u201cgeneral public.\u201d IRA sought an injunction requiring the defendants to correct their allegedly misleading public statements. The defendants then removed the case to federal court, arguing that the cost of compliance with an injunction (product labeling, public messaging, or both) met the monetary threshold required for federal jurisdiction. However, the Court did not buy into that argument wholesale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Ruling in International Rights Advocates v. Mars, Inc.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Judge Lamberth ruled that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the financial stakes met the standard for federal jurisdiction. He found that, rather than counting the total compliance costs, the amount should be divided among the affected population. More importantly, this case clearly set out a standard that a representative action under the DCCPPA brought on behalf of the general public cannot aggregate damages by the total costs combined to the defendants. This case follows precedent set in Breakman v. AOL LLC<\/em>, when the court held that compliance cost could be used to determine the amount in controversy in an action where separate and distinct claims are presented on behalf of multiple parties only when the cost running to each plaintiff meets the amount in controversy requirement.545 F. Supp. 2d 96, 106 (D.D.C. 2008).This led Judge Lamberth to remand the case back to the D.C. Superior Court, where the chocolatiers will have to litigate the representative action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Implications For Companies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This ruling serves as cautionary tale for employers hoping to whisk cases away to federal court by piling on compliance costs. Courts are increasingly scrutinizing how these figures are calculated. For companies facing consumer protection claims, this decision signals that removing cases to federal court will not always be a piece of cake. Employers must be prepared for cases to remain in state or local court where procedural rules might not be as favorable.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Rebecca Bjork, and Anna Sheridan Duane Morris Takeaways: \u00a0On March 13, 2025, in International Rights Advocates v. Mars Inc. et al., No. 1:24-CV-00894 (D.D.C. Mar. 13, 2025), \u00a0Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the lawsuit filed by International Rights Advocates (IRA) … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “A Not So Sweet Opinion For Chocolatiers As Judge Remands Child Labor-Tied Case Back To State Court”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-2092","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-general"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Defense","first_name":"Class Action","job_title":"","user_url":"","description":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2092","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2092"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2092\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2092"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=2092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}