Neversink General Store v. Mowi USA, LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-09293
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Neversink General Store v. Mowi USA, Judge Engelmayer flagged enforcement questions about settlement business-practice changes before the final-approval hearing.
The proposed settlement class, the named plaintiffs Neversink General Store and Brenda Tomlinson, and the defendant Mowi entities could be affected by how the settlement’s business-practice provision is ultimately enforced.
What happened
In Neversink General Store v. Mowi USA, LLC, the court said a separate order had preliminarily approved the parties’ class settlement and scheduled a final-approval hearing for November 19, 2021.
The court expected to question the parties about defendants’ agreement to stop using phrases including “sustainably sourced,” “all natural,” and “Naturally Smoked Salmon FROM MAINE.” The court also planned to ask how those promises could be enforced, who could enforce them, and what would happen if defendants breached them.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued this order on May 13, 2021. The order did not itself give final approval to the settlement; it identified issues for discussion at the scheduled hearing.
The detailed version
- Neversink General Store v. Mowi USA, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-09293
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 13, 2021
Background
Neversink General Store and Brenda Tomlinson brought this proposed class action against Mowi USA, LLC, Mowi Ducktrap, LLC, Mowi USA Holding, LLC, and Mowi ASA. The opinion states that the court had preliminarily approved the parties’ class settlement in a separate order and had scheduled a final-approval hearing for November 19, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.
Settlement Terms at Issue
The settlement included an agreement that the defendants would make certain business-practice changes, including refraining from using the phrases “sustainably sourced,” “all natural,” and “Naturally Smoked Salmon FROM MAINE.” The court noted that the initial agreement instead contemplated a court-issued injunction requiring those changes. The court stated that it likely could not have enforced such a class-wide injunction under recent Second Circuit precedent.
Court’s Order
Because there was no injunctive class in the action, the court expected to question counsel at the final-approval hearing about how the business-practice provision would be enforced, who could enforce it, and what consequences would follow from a breach. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer’s order identified these issues for the hearing; it did not itself state that the settlement received final approval or impose an injunction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.