Celebrating
25 Years Of Practice

Current Cases

Court Preliminarily Approves $1.95 million Settlement in In RE: Southern Ohio Health Systems Data Breach Litigation

On August 2, 2022, Judge Jennifer Branch of the Court of Common Please, Hamilton County, Ohio, granted preliminary approval to a nationwide class action settlement negotiated by Goldenberg Schneider and its co-counsel in In re Southern Ohio Health Systems Data Breach, No. A2101886 (Hamilton Cty. C.P.). That consolidated action involves two related class action lawsuits against Defendants Adena Health System (“Adena”) and TriHealth, Inc. (“TriHealth”) (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging that Defendants failed to protect their patients’ sensitive information from a recent criminal hacking and ransomware attack that targeted a law firm, Bricker & Eckler, with whom Defendants entrusted their patients’ sensitive information.

The proposed Settlement provides for the creation of a non-reversionary common fund of $1,950,000.00 (“Fund”), which will cover all settlement costs (notice, fees, administration) and provide two separate forms of relief to approximately 420,433 class members: (1) reimbursement for loss of time compensated at $20.00 per hour for up to 4 hours ($80 cap) for undocumented time, and $20 per hour for up to 8 additional hours ($160 cap) for documented time; and (2) reimbursement for documented out-of-pocket expenses and financial losses up to $5,000.00 per claimant.

The Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing for November 17, 2022. Additional information about the settlement and instructions on how to submit a claim for benefits will be made available www.southernohiohealthsystemsdatabreachsettlement.com no later than September 22, 2022.

Continental Casualty Long-Term Care Premium Increase Litigation

Goldenberg Schneider, working with co-counsel from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, has struck a victory for Wells Fargo employees who have faced years of premium increases on their long-term care insurance from Defendant Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”). The case arises from Continental’s long-term care insurance policy issued to Wells Fargo. The plaintiffs allege that the policy provides that Continental would not raise premiums unless it could do so on a nationwide basis for insureds in a particular age group. However, faced with tight regulatory standards in many states (some of which cap annual increases at 10% or 15%), Continental went shopping for the maximum increase that each individual state would allow, seeking increases as high as 95%, raising premiums unequally state to state, and breaching the group policy.

On March 15, 2022, United States District Court Judge Mary M. Rowland substantially denied Continental’s motion to dismiss the action, finding that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded claims for breach of contract, fraud, violations of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and declaratory and injunctive relief. Judge Rowland was persuaded by a similar case in which a sister court considered the interpretation of the same Policy. See Sieving v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 535 F. Supp. 3d 762, 769 (N.D. Ill. 2021). Sieving observed that the Policy did not define the term “premium class,” rendering it ambiguous because it was susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations. Id. The court found that the plaintiff had presented one plausible interpretation: that Continental promised to not raise premiums unless it did so for all insureds in a particular age group on a nationwide level. Id. Because the plaintiff had alleged that Defendant raised premiums at different times in different States, and at different times, the court concluded that the plaintiff stated a plausible breach of contract claim.

The case, Brown v. Continental Cas. Co., No. 21-cv-2349, is currently pending before Judge Mary M. Rowland in the United States District Court for the Norther District of Illinois.

If you or anyone you know have been subject to long-term care insurance premium increases by Continental and would like additional information about your legal rights, we would be pleased to discuss the matter with you. You can contact the attorneys at Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, by calling 513-982-1569 or sending an email to [email protected].

Honda Odyssey, Pilot and Passport Defective Infotainment System

Court Preliminarily Approves 2018-2019 Honda Odyssey and 2019 Honda Pilot Infotainment System Defect Settlement

On June 4, 2021, Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted preliminary approval to a nationwide class action settlement negotiated by Goldenberg Schneider and its co-counsel in Conti v. America Honda Motor Co., Inc., C.D. Cal. 2:19-cv-02160-CJC(GJSx). In the case, plaintiffs alleged that America Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”) knowingly sold its 2018-2019 Honda Odyssey and 2019 Honda Pilot and Passport vehicles with defective infotainment systems that behaved erratically, malfunctioned, and repeatedly froze, thereby distracting the driver and posing a safety hazard. Since the lawsuit was filed, AHM has issued recalls, Service Bulletins, and software updates intended to address the infotainment systems’ problems.

The proposed Settlement calls for an independent engineering expert to validate the efficacy of the countermeasures that AHM has developed; facilitates the implementation of these countermeasures in the field; provides a two-year/24,000 mile warranty extension covering these issues; obligates AHM to work in good faith to continue to improve Infotainment System performance at least through the extended warranty period; creates a Dealership Assistance and Assessment Program (the “DAAP”) that will direct AHM’s authorized dealerships to undergo additional training and to repair or address infotainment system problems described by the vehicle owner even when the problem does not manifest during the service visit; creates the Infotainment System Online Resource to, among other things, inform Settlement Class Members about the countermeasures now available and the symptoms they are designed to address and permit Settlement Class Members to report directly to AHM any new Infotainment System symptoms or problems they may experience; provides a mechanism to compensate qualifying Settlement Class Members for the inconvenience and hassle they may have experienced because of relevant Infotainment System problems, including two free years of HondaLink Security Service or one year of SiriusXM Select; and provides a mechanism for qualifying Settlement Class Members to receive full reimbursement for eligible out-of-pocket expenses. Further, the Proposed Settlement provides a mechanism for AHM to separately pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and Plaintiff service awards so that these payments will not dilute any of the benefits available to the Class.

The Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing for January 4, 2022. Additional information about the settlement and instructions on how to submit a claim for benefits can be found at www.infotainmentsettlement.com.

2019-2020 Acura RDX Infotainment System Defect Class Action

Court Grants Final Approval to 2019-2020 Acura RDX Infotainment System Defect Settlement.

On December 6, 2021, Judge R. Gary Klausner of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted final approval to a nationwide class action settlement negotiated by Goldenberg Schneider and its co-counsel in Bahn v. America Honda Motor Co., Inc., C.D. Cal. 2:19-cv-05984-RGK (ASx). In the case, plaintiffs alleged that America Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM”) knowingly sold its 2019-2020 Acura RDX vehicles with defective infotainment systems that behaved erratically, malfunctioned, and repeatedly froze, thereby distracting the driver and posing a safety hazard. Since the lawsuit was filed, AHM has issued recalls, Service Bulletins, and software updates intended to address the infotainment systems’ problems.

The Settlement requires an independent engineering expert to validate the efficacy of the countermeasures that AHM has developed; facilitates the implementation of these countermeasures in the field; provides a two-year/24,000 mile warranty extension covering these issues; obligates AHM to work in good faith to continue to improve Infotainment System performance at least through the extended warranty period; creates a Dealership Assistance and Assessment Program (the “DAAP”) that will direct AHM’s authorized dealerships to undergo additional training and to repair or address infotainment system problems described by the vehicle owner even when the problem does not manifest during the service visit; creates the Infotainment System Online Resource to, among other things, inform Settlement Class Members about the countermeasures now available and the symptoms they are designed to address and permit Settlement Class Members to report directly to AHM any new Infotainment System symptoms or problems they may experience; provides a mechanism to compensate qualifying Settlement Class Members for the inconvenience and hassle they may have experienced because of relevant Infotainment System problems, including two free years of AcuraLink Security Service (valued at $89 per year); and provides a mechanism for qualifying Settlement Class Members to receive full reimbursement for eligible out-of-pocket expenses. Further, the Proposed Settlement provides a mechanism for AHM to separately pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and Plaintiff service awards so that these payments will not dilute any of the benefits available to the Class.

The settlement successfully resolved claims for the approximately 130,000 class members who purchased or leased 2019-2020 Acura RDX vehicles. Additional information about the settlement and instructions on how to submit a claim for benefits can be found at www.infotainmentsettlement.com.

In re Hudson’s Bay Company Data Security Settlement

If you used a credit, debit, or other payment card (other than a Saks First branded credit card) at a Saks, Saks OFF 5TH, or Lord & Taylor store in the United States and in U.S. territories between May 1, 2017 and April 1, 2018, you may be eligible for benefits from a data breach class action settlement. If you are a Settlement Class Member, you may be eligible for a $30.00 cash payment for time spent monitoring or addressing the Data Breach, and you may also be eligible for reimbursement of actual documented unreimbursed out-of-pocket expenses caused by the Data Breach, up to $5,000.

A settlement (the “Settlement”) has been proposed with Hudson’s Bay Company ULC (formerly known as Hudson’s Bay Company), Saks Incorporated, Saks Fifth Avenue LLC, Saks & Company LLC, and Lord & Taylor LLC (“Defendants”) in lawsuits asserting claims against Defendants relating to a data security incident that occurred between May 1, 2017 and April 1, 2018, arising from a third-party criminal cyberattack involving the placement of malware on Defendants’ point of sale systems targeting customers’ payment card information (the “Data Breach”). Defendants deny all of the claims. The Settlement does not establish who is correct and is not an admission of fault, but rather is a compromise to end the lawsuit.

The Settlement includes, subject to certain limitations, all persons who used their credit, debit or prepaid debit card (other than a Saks First branded credit card) at a Saks, Saks OFF 5TH, or Lord & Taylor store in the United States and in U.S. territories between May 1, 2017 and April 1, 2018 (the “Settlement Class”).

The Final Approval Hearing was held at 2:30 p.m. on January 11, 2022. The Court reserved decision and the hearing has been continued to March 1, 2022 at 3:00 p.m.

Additional information about the settlement and instructions on how to submit a claim for benefits can be found at https://hbcsettlement.com or you may contact the settlement administrator at:

HBC Claims Administrator
P.O Box 2005
Chanhassen, MN 55317-2005

By E-Mail:

[email protected]

By Phone:

1-877-805-1278

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT

Please note the deadline to file a claim is January 31, 2022.

Plum Baby Food Litigation

On September 17, 2021, Federal Magistrate Judge Sharon A. King of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey tapped Jeffrey Goldenberg of Goldenberg Schneider to serve as a member of plaintiffs’ interim Executive Committee in the consolidated multistate class action, In re Plum Baby Food Litigation, D. N.J. Civ. No. 21-2417 (NLH/SAK). The litigation arises from numerous Plum-brand baby foods alleged to contain heavy metals not disclosed on the product labels. Exposure to heavy metals endangers infant neurological development and long-term brain function, and has been linked to permanent decreases in IQ, diminished future economic productivity, and increased risk of future criminal and antisocial behavior in children. The defendants are Plum, PBC (“Plum”), a leading brand of organic baby food in the United States, and Campbell Soup Company (“Campbell”), which purchased Plum in 2013 for $249 million. Plaintiff and the proposed class members assert claims for consumer fraud and seek damages, injunctive and declarative relief, interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

If you or anyone you know purchased a Plum-brand baby food and would like additional information about your legal rights, we would be pleased to discuss the matter with you. You can contact the attorneys at Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, by calling 513-982-1569 or sending an email to [email protected].

Mercedes Diesel Emissions Class Action

Goldenberg Schneider, working with co-counsel from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. and SeegerWeiss, have settled the Mercedes Blue-Tec Engines Diesel Emissions Fraud litigation. The settlement with Mercedes Benz is valued at more than $700 million and provides substantial benefits to nearly 250,000 owners and lessees of affected diesel Mercedes vehicles. The lawsuit was originally brought in 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges that Mercedes-Benz USA teamed up with Robert Bosch GmbH to program its BlueTEC vehicles to release illegally high, dangerous levels of emissions via a “defeat device,” similar to that used by Volkswagen Group that sparked its emissions cheating scandal. Such defeat devices turn off or limit emissions reductions during real-world driving conditions but not during vehicle emissions tests. A defeat device allows a vehicle to pass government emissions testing while exceeding pollution standards under real-world driving conditions. The complaint accuses Mercedes of deceiving consumers with false representations of its BlueTEC vehicles, which it marketed as “earth-friendly.”

If the settlement is approved by the court, owners of affected Mercedes diesel vehicles may receive the following:

• An Approved Emissions Modification (AEM) free of charge and an extended modification warranty. From a separate settlement with federal and California regulators, these benefits are available even if you do not participate in the class action.

• Protection pending the modification’s effects to your vehicle. AEMs installed in affected vehicles will come with additional protection, should the AEM affect your vehicle’s performance. Affected owners are slated to receive compensation depending on whether the AEM affected fuel economy, horsepower, torque and/or other aftereffects of the emissions modification. Owners may also be able to receive payment for transportation costs in the event their installation of an AEM takes more than three hours to complete.

• Payment for Mercedes’ diesel emissions deficiencies. Under the settlement, current owners and lessees can receive $3,290 if no former owner/lessee submits a claim for the same vehicle. If a former owner/lessee does submit a claim for the same vehicle, current owners and lessees can receive $2,467.50. Former owners and lessees can receive $822.50, divided equally among former owners/lessees who submit claims for the same vehicle.

• Additional payment. For current owners and lessees who have an AEM installed, additional payments may be available under various circumstances. Owners may also receive additional payment if an AEM is not available by October 2022.

More information can be found at the settlement website, www.mbbluetecsettlement.com. You can contact the attorneys at Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, by calling 513-982-1569 or sending an email to [email protected].

Leaf Filter Class Action

On August 8, 2022, Judge Michael Watson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted preliminary approval to a nationwide class action settlement negotiated by Goldenberg Schneider and its co-counsel in Zilinksky v. LeafFilter North, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-06229. In the case, plaintiffs alleged that LeafFilter North, LLC (“LeafFilter”) knowingly sold its LeafFilter Gutter System with a defect that cause debris to accumulate on top of the System. Plaintiffs further alleged that the debris accumulation must be cleaned off the top of the system to allow water to enter the gutters.

Class members covered by the proposed settlement are those customers that appear in LeafFilter’s customer care database with a Debris-Related Final Issue Code for their service request during the time period from January 1, 2016 through June 24, 2022. The proposed Settlement provides for reimbursement to class members of up to $200 in previous debris cleanings, and vouchers for up to three future cleanings (valued at $95 each) to be performed by LeafFilter at no cost. Additionally, if a class member removed their LeafFilter system because of debris accumulation issues, that class member can be reimbursed up to $200 for the cost of removal. Further, the Proposed Settlement provides a mechanism for LeafFilter to separately pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs and Plaintiff service awards so that these payments will not dilute any of the benefits available to the Class.

The Court has scheduled a Final Approval Hearing for March 14, 2023. Additional information about the settlement can be found at www.leaffiltersettlement.com, and instructions on how to submit a claim for benefits will be posted to that website no later than October 7, 2022.

Jeep Cherokee, Compass, And Renegade Oil Consumption Case

A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action alleging that FCA US LLC (formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC) knowing sold hundreds of thousands of Jeep and Chrysler vehicles containing defective 2.4L Tigershark engines that improperly burn off and/or consume abnormally high amounts of oil. As a result of the alleged defect, the vehicles shut down without warning during normal operation. The case, Wood, et al. v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-11054, was filed on April 29, 2020, in the Eastern District of Michigan, and Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement was granted on June 7, 2022.

The proposed settlement covers the following Class Vehicles:

  • 2015 – 2017 Chrysler 200;
  • 2013 – 2016 Dodge Dart;
  • 2016 – 2018 Fiat 500X;
  • 2014 – 2019 Jeep Cherokee (manufactured prior to July 2018);
  • 2017 – 2018 Jeep Compass;
  • 2015 – 2018 Jeep Renegade; and
  • 2015 – 2018 Ram ProMaster City.

The settlement benefits include an extended Powertrain Limited Warranty, Product Improvements, Reimbursement for Repairs, Reimbursement for Repair-Related Transportation Costs, and Compensation for Class Vehicles Subject to CSN W80 that had an Engine Long Block Replacement. For additional details regarding the settlement and how to submit a Repair Reimbursement Claim Form (for repairs you paid for) and/or a Repair-Related Expense Reimbursement Claim Form (for repair related expenses such as towing or rental expenses), please visit the settlement website at https://www.fcatigersharksettlement.com/

Luminox Watch Class Action

Goldenberg Schneider recently filed a class action lawsuit against Lumondi, dba Luminox Watch Company, in the United District Court for the Southern District of New York. Advertised as “The Official Watch of the Navy SEALs,” Lumondi markets Luminox watches to military service members, scuba divers, first responders, athletes and “rugged outdoorsmen” seeking “extreme performance” from their timepieces. However, the lawsuit alleges that Luminox watches contain a defect that causes their watch faces to fog when worn outdoors in either cold or hot temperatures. As a result of the fogging defect, Luminox watches exposed to outdoor temperatures below approximately 40 degrees Fahrenheit or above approximately 90 degrees Fahrenheit remain cloudy until the watches return to room temperature. Lumondi has acknowledged the fogging defect but shockingly defends it as being “normal.” The fog that forms underneath the watch face is not only unsightly, but can also render the watches substantially unreadable.

If you or anyone you know purchased a Luminox watch and would like additional information about your legal rights, we would be pleased to discuss the matter with you. You can contact the attorneys at Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, by calling 513-982-1569 or sending an email to [email protected].

Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation

Goldenberg Schneider has joined forces with attorneys from Spector Roseman & Kodroff, PC, and others in prosecuting putative class actions against some of the largest suppliers of automotive parts alleging that they have engaged in a large-scale, decade-long conspiracy to unlawfully fix and artificially raise automotive part prices. These massive price-fixing class actions are being brought on behalf of direct purchasers who were overcharged for various kinds of automotive parts, including wire harness products, heater control panels, instrument panel clusters, fuel senders, occupant safety restraint system products, bearings, air conditioning systems, starters, windshield wiper systems, windshield washer systems, spark plugs, oxygen sensors, fuel injection systems, alternators, ignition coils, and power window motors.

All cases are pending before Judge Marianne Battani in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in Detroit. See In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:12-md-02311-MOB-MKM. Goldenberg Schneider and its fellow counsel representing the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs have defeated all motions to dismiss filed to date in all product cases and reached settlements with four defendants totaling approximately $53 million. The U.S. Department of Justice, the Japan Fair Trade Commission, and the European Commission continue to investigate the Automotive Parts industry, and criminal fines levied total $2.5 billion to date, with thirty-five companies and twenty-nine executives having pleaded guilty or having agreed to plead guilty in the United States. You can contact the attorneys at Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, by calling 513-982-1569 or sending an email to [email protected].

STRS COLA Class Action

Goldenberg Schneider has joined forces with attorneys from Minnillo & Jenkins, Co., L.P.A. and Finney Law Firm, LLC and filed a putative class action against the Ohio State Teachers’ Retirement Board on behalf of all participants in the Ohio State Teachers’ Retirement System (“STRS”), alleging that changes made to cost-of-living adjustments (“COLA”) in 2017 violated state laws, the U.S. Constitution and the state constitution. In March 2017, the pension fund’s board reduced the COLA to zero from 2% effective July 1, 2017. The suit, filed May 23, 2019 in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati, alleges that the pension fund’s elimination of the COLA for all retirees in 2017 violated procedural and substantive due process, impaired their right of contract, and a violated the contracts clause and takings clause in both the U.S. and Ohio constitutions.

The case, Dennis v. State Teachers Retirement Board, No. 1:19-cv-00386-SJD, is currently pending before Judge Susan J. Dlott in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. You can contact the attorneys at Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, by calling 513-982-1569 or sending an email to [email protected].

Ford Truck Fuel Economy Class Action

Goldenberg Schneider, working with co-counsel Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all owners and lessors of 2018 and 2019 Ford F-150 trucks and 2019 Ford Ranger trucks, which accuses Ford of falsifying tests related to the fuel economy of the most popular vehicle in the world – the, Ford F-150. The lawsuit alleges that Ford deliberately miscalculated and misrepresented factors used in vehicle certification testing in order to report that its vehicles used less fuel and emitted less pollution than they actually do.

For instance, according to testing conducted by plaintiffs following EPA-mandated coastdown procedures, Ford has overstated the fuel economy in its F-150 trucks by 15 percent for highway mileage and 10 percent for city mileage. Assuming the lifetime of a truck is 150,000 miles, city driving would consume an extra 821 gallons over the lifetime of the truck, or at $2.79 national average fuel price, an extra $2,290 in fuel costs. The highway extra fuel (actual MPG compared to Ford’s reported MPG) is 968 gallons or $2,700.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages related to the falsified fuel economy of affected Ford trucks, as well as injunctive relief halting Ford’s design, manufacture, marketing, sale and lease of the trucks. The suit also seeks punitive damages under certain laws for Ford’s alleged knowledge of its misrepresented fuel economy prior to sale of the trucks. The suit asserts claims for fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment, fraud, breach of warranty, false advertising and violation of dozens of state consumer-protection laws.

On August 1, 2019, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the lawsuit along with more than a dozen “tag-along” actions to the Eastern District of Michigan to be consolidated for pretrial proceedings before Judge Sean F. Cox. See In re Ford Motor Co. F-150 and Ranger Truck Fuel Economy Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2901. On February 24, 2022, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis of preemption; however, class counsel filed its appeal, Marshall Lloyd v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 22-1245, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 22, 2022.

If you or anyone you know purchased or leased an affected vehicle and would like additional information about your legal rights, we would be pleased to discuss the matter with you. You can contact the attorneys at Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, by calling 513-982-1569 or sending an email to [email protected].

Luxottica Data Breach Class Action

On January 12, 2021, federal district court judge Michael Barrett of the Southern District of Ohio tapped Jeffrey Goldenberg of Goldenberg Schneider to serve as co-interim liaison counsel in the consolidated multistate class action. In re Luxottica of America, Inc. Data Security Breach Litigation, S.D. Ohio 1:20-cv-00908-MRB. This litigation arises out of Luxottica’s alleged failure to exercise reasonable care to safeguard plaintiffs’ and absent class members’ personally identifiable information, including their protected health information. Despite the heightened risk for data breach vulnerabilities as a health care provider, Plaintiffs allege Luxottica did not have appropriate measures in place to protect against a breach. As a result, on or around August 5, 2020, Luxottica experienced a data breach that allowed unauthorized persons to access hundreds of thousands of patients’ personal information, including health insurance information, social security numbers, and medical conditions and history. Luxottica became aware of the breach on August 9, 2020, but did not inform its patients about the breach until October 28, 2020.

If you or anyone you know received a notification from Luxottica about this breach and would like additional information about your legal rights, we would be pleased to discuss the matter with you. You can contact the attorneys at Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, by calling 513-982-1569 or sending an email to [email protected].

Sportmix and Pro Pac Contaminated Pet Food Class Action

On January 13, 2021, Goldenberg Schneider filed the first nationwide class action lawsuit against Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. (“Midwestern”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. Midwestern is a manufacturer and seller of pet foods, including the Sportmix and Pro Pac brand pet foods.* Plaintiffs allege that despite its representations and express warranties regarding the safety and quality of these pet foods and the manufacturing processes used to create them, Midwestern sold dog and cat food containing dangerous levels of Aflatoxin, a toxin produced by the mold Aspergillus flavus. Aflatoxin can grow on corn and other grains used as ingredients in pet food. At high levels, aflatoxin can cause illness or death in pets. Pets with aflatoxin poisoning may experience symptoms such as sluggishness, loss of appetite, vomiting, jaundice (yellowish tint to the eyes, gums or skin due to liver damage), and/or diarrhea. In some cases, this toxicity can cause long-term liver issues and/or death. Some pets suffer liver damage without showing any symptoms.

On December 30, 2020, Midwestern announced a recall of certain lots of Sportmix products after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) was alerted about reports of at least 28 dogs that died and eight that had fallen ill after consuming Sportmix products. The FDA now estimates at least 70 dogs have died and at least another 80 pets are believed to have become sick after consuming Sportmix products. According to the FDA, pet owners whose pets have been eating the recalled products should contact their veterinarians, especially if they are showing signs of illness.

If you or anyone you know purchased Sportmix pet food and would like additional information about your legal rights, we would be pleased to discuss the matter with you. You can contact the attorneys at Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, by calling 513-982-1569 or sending an email to [email protected].

*Sportmix brand pet foods include: Sportmix Premium Energy Plus dog food; Sportmix Premium High Energy dog food; Sportmix Premium Maintenance dog food; Sportmix Premium Stamina dog food; Sportmix Premium Puppy Small Bites; Sportmix Original High Protein dog food; Sportmix Original Bite Size dog food; Sportmix Gourmet Mix cat food; Sportmix Original cat food; Pro Pac Adult Mini Chunk; Pro Pac Performance Puppy; Splash Fat Cat 32%; Nunn Better Maintenance; Sportmix Original Cat; Sportmix Maintenance; Sportmix High Protein; Sportmix Energy Plus; Sportmix Stamina; Sportmix High Energy; Sportmix High Energy; Sportmix Premium Puppy; Pro Pac Adult Mini Chunk dog food; Pro Pac Performance Puppy; Nunn Better Maintenance dog food; and Sportmix Bite Size.

Environmental Health And Safety

Environmental Health & Safety

Auditing, compliance and more

Litigation

Litigation

Consumer protection, product defect and more