Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Central District of California
February 13, 2015, Decided; February 13, 2015, Filed
No. CV 11-3473 CBM (MANx)
[*1077] ORDER GRANTING INGREDION INCORPORATED'S AND [**6] TATE & LYLE INGREDIENTS AMERICAS, INC.'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP
Before the Court is Defendant/Counterclaimant Ingredion Incorporated's and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc.'s Motions to Disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel, Squire Patton Boggs LLP (collectively the "Motions"). (Dkt. Nos. 232, 233.) Squire Patton Boggs LLP and Plaintiff Sugar Association oppose the Motions. (Dkt. Nos. 250, 249, 252.)
[*1078] I. JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338.
II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The underlying case arises from false advertising claims relating to the marketing of high-fructose corn syrup ("HFCS"), pitting the sugar industry against the corn-refining industry. Plaintiffs are sugar industry manufacturers, trade groups, and associations: Western Sugar Cooperative; Michigan Sugar Co.; C & H Sugar Co., Inc.; United States Sugar Corporation; American Sugar Refining, Inc.; The Amalgamated Sugar Co., LLC; Imperial Sugar Corp.; Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative; The American Sugar Cane League U.S.A., Inc.; and The Sugar Association, Inc. ("Sugar Association") (collectively the "Sugar Plaintiffs"). (Second Am. Compl. ("SAC") ¶¶ 12-21 (Dkt. No. 55).) [**7] Defendants are manufacturers and trade groups and associations active in the corn and HFCS industry: Archer-Daniels-Midland Company ("ADM"); Cargill, Incorporated ("Cargill"); Ingredion Inc., formerly called Corn Products International, Inc. ("Ingredion"); Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. ("Tate & Lyle"); and The Corn Refiners Association ("CRA") (collectively "Defendants").1 (Id., ¶¶ 22-27.)
Plaintiffs, represented by the legacy law firm of Squire Sanders & Dempsey, LLP ("Squire Sanders"), filed the instant lawsuit on April 22, 2011, and the SAC on November 21, 2011. (Dkt. No. 55.) The SAC asserts one cause of action for false advertising under the Lanham Act, alleging that Defendants misled consumers by use of the term "corn sugar." (SAC ¶¶ 65-75.)
On September 4, 2012, Defendants ADM, Cargill, Ingredion, and Tate & Lyle each filed a counterclaim against Plaintiff the Sugar Association. (Dkt. Nos. 85-88.) Defendants' counterclaim asserts one cause of action for false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, alleging [**8] that the Sugar Association misrepresented HFCS as unhealthy. (Id. ¶¶ 68-95.)
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
98 F. Supp. 3d 1074 *; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21448 **
WESTERN SUGAR COOP., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND CO., ET AL., Defendants.
Subsequent History: Motion granted by W. Sugar Coop., et al. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193967 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 23, 2015)
Prior History: Western Sugar Coop. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158252 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 19, 2011)
Sugar, Engagement, ethical, disqualification, matters, merger, law firm, representations, conflicts, Terms, concurrent, waive, disqualification motion, confidences, contends, disqualified, declares, Motions, lawyers, former client, Recordings, attorney-client, manufacturing, terminated, mitigate, confidential information, withdrawal, corn, substantial relation, duty of loyalty
Civil Procedure, Attorneys, Disqualification of Counsel, Legal Ethics, Client Relations, Conflicts of Interest