A federal appeals court ruled grocery chain Whole Foods should not have been dropped from the lawsuit and sent the case back to state court.
The Supreme Court agreed on April 28 to hear a case about whether a state court should have to retry two parents’ claim that allegedly tainted baby food gave their son autism.
The Supreme Court granted the petition in Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist without comment in an unsigned order. No justices dissented.
The appeal that the nation’s highest court agreed to hear is not expected to focus on the merits of the parents’ claim that links the baby food in question to autism. Instead, the justices will consider where the lawsuit should be heard.
One of the petitioners, Hain Celestial Group, which is headquartered in Hoboken, New Jersey, makes and sells organic baby food. Its products are sold by the other petitioner, Whole Foods Market, a grocery chain with its headquarters in Austin, Texas.
The respondents, Sarah and Grant Palmquist, are Texas residents. Their son, E.P., suffers from “an unusually profound case of Autism Spectrum Disorder” and consumed Earth’s Best foods, made by Hain, through his early years, according to the companies’ petition filed Jan. 7.
The parents sued Hain in Brazoria County, Texas, claiming Earth’s Best baby food had heavy metals in it that caused their child’s autism. They also sued Whole Foods, which they say sold them the baby food, for breach of warranty and negligence, and which they say vouched for the safety of the food.
Related Stories
A breach of warranty occurs when a seller fails to adhere to their promises about a product or service. Such promises often pertain to the safety or quality of the product.
Hain filed to remove, or transfer, the case to the federal district court in the Southern District of Texas, arguing diversity jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction refers to the authority of federal courts to hear cases in which the parties are from different states, the petition said.
The petitioners argued that under Texas law, a seller such as Texas-based Whole Foods “that did not manufacture a product is not liable for harm caused … by that product.”
After the case was removed to federal district court, the parents amended their complaint, “alleging new causes of action against Whole Foods based on novel theories.” They claimed that Whole Foods made “express factual representations” about the safety of Hain’s baby food and that they relied on those representations when making purchasing decisions, according to the petition.
The parents asked the federal court to send the case back to the state court, arguing that it was appropriate for Whole Foods to be a party in the proceeding because their amended complaint fell within an express-warranty exception to the Texas law rule that sellers should not be held liable for products they didn’t manufacture.
The petition said the federal court sided with the petitioners and denied the motion, finding that under a time-of-filing rule, it was not allowed to consider the amendments made to the complaint after it was removed to federal court. The federal court dismissed the claim against Whole Foods with prejudice, meaning the claim may not be brought again.
With Whole Foods excluded from the case, the parents and Hain spent more than a year on the discovery process, in which evidence is gathered. The case went to trial, and the federal court ruled in favor of Hain, finding that the respondents had not produced enough evidence to show that ingesting heavy metals could have caused E.P.’s symptoms, the petition said.
The parents appealed, arguing that the federal district court erred in excluding Whole Foods as a party in finding for Hain and that the case should have been sent back to state court.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled the federal district court should not have dismissed Whole Foods as a party and ordered that the case return to state court for a brand new trial. The discovery process has begun in the state court, and a trial is scheduled to begin in September of this year, the petition said.
The petitioners urged the Supreme Court to grant the petition, arguing the Fifth Circuit’s ruling conflicts with those made by other circuit courts and is inconsistent with reasoning in prior Supreme Court decisions.
The parents asked the Supreme Court to deny the petition, arguing in a March 12 brief that the Fifth Circuit’s ruling was correct.
Hain “improperly removed this case, insisting on federal jurisdiction where it did not exist,” according to the brief.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in its new term that begins in October.
Leave feedback about this