Quantcast

Panera seeks dismissal of lawsuit over caffeine in lemonade; Case alleges cardiac arrest

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Thursday, November 21, 2024

Panera seeks dismissal of lawsuit over caffeine in lemonade; Case alleges cardiac arrest

Federal Court
Panera bread

Panera Bread Company | Wikimedia Commons

PHILADELPHIA – Panera Bread Company is seeking to dismiss litigation brought by a Monroeville man, who claimed he went into cardiac arrest nearly died after drinking one of its now-discontinued “Charged Lemonade” beverages.

Luke Adams of Monroeville first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on May 20 versus Panera Bread Company of Monroeville and Panera, LLC, of St Louis.

“In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that, on March 9, 2024, he ordered and consumed a Mango Yuzu Citrus Charged Lemonade from the Panera Café located in Monroeville, which later caused him to have a cardiac arrest while at a movie theatre that was also located in Monroeville. Plaintiff was then transported via ambulance to the Allegheny Health Network Forbes Hospital, which is also located in Monroeville,” according to the suit’s relevant facts.

“Despite residing in Monroeville, allegedly purchasing the product at issue in Monroeville, allegedly suffering a cardiac arrest in Monroeville, and receiving resulting medical care in Monroeville, plaintiff did not file his case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, which is the venue that encompasses Allegheny County, where Monroeville is located.”

The defendants deny all of the plaintiff’s allegations in their entirety, and then filed a motion to dismiss the case on July 10 – or in the alternative, to have it transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The motion used the Jumara factors to support its contention that the case should be transferred, beginning with the public factors.

“In this case, plaintiff does not live within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Moreover, none of the operative facts occurred within the Eastern District. As such, as to this first factor, plaintiff’s choice of forum, is entitled to little weight, if any. The second factor, in comparison, weighs in favor of transferring venue since the defendants prefer litigating this case in the district within which the events giving rise to this case occurred and where the Panera Café is located and does business. The third factor, where the claim arose, also weighs strongly in favor of transfer. ‘When the vast majority of the acts giving rise to plaintiff’s claims take place in another forum, that weighs heavily in favor of transfer.’ Again, none of the facts giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Eastern District. Instead, all of the operative facts leading to this lawsuit occurred in the Western District,” per the dismissal motion.

“The fourth and fifth factors, related to convenience of the parties and fact witnesses, also weigh in favor of transfer to Western District. The plaintiff is a resident of the Western District. The subject Panera Café is located in the Western District. All fact witnesses, including eye witnesses, first responders, treating doctors, and staff at the Panera Café, are located within the Western District – i.e., Monroeville, Allegheny County. No fact witnesses or parties are located in the Eastern District. Finally, the sixth factor, consideration of the location of books and records ‘should be limited to the extent that the files could not be produced in the alternative forum.’ Candidly, because of the technological advances in the electronic storage and transfer of documents, the sixth factor has little weight as documents can be easily produced in any district. Thus, this factor is neutral.”

The motion continued by examining the private set of Jumara factors.

“The factors courts consider in weighing the public interest in whether to transfer a case also support transferring venue in this case to the Western District. Importantly, the ‘burden of jury duty should not be placed on citizens with a remote connection to the lawsuit.’ The local interest, therefore, favors transferring the case to the location where the events occurred, rather than allowing it to remain in a venue with no connection to plaintiff’s claims. In addition, there are practical considerations that would make the trial easier or less expensive in the Western District, including the ability to call local witnesses to trial in a local venue. If the case remained in the Eastern District, all fact witnesses would be required to travel (plane, train or car) from across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (almost 300 miles) from Monroeville (Pittsburgh) to Philadelphia to testify at trial, likely requiring at least one overnight stay,” the motion added.

“Moreover, a judgment from the Western District of Pennsylvania would be equally as enforceable as one from this honorable Court, so this public factor should not be given any weight. Similarly, both courts are competent to administer the case. Finally, defendants are not aware of either the Western or Eastern District being particularly congested as compared to the other. Simply put, there are no strong public policy interests favoring this Court over the Western District. As shown, both the private and public Jumara factors support transferring this case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the Western District of Pennsylvania because this Court has no connection to the parties, events or claims in this case.”

Another case related to the “Charged Lemonade” beverage, a wrongful death lawsuit, is also pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In May, Panera discontinued sales of its “Charged Lemonade” beverage nationwide.

For counts of strict products liability, negligence, misrepresentation and breach of express warranty, the plaintiff is seeking, jointly and severally, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, costs of suit and such other relief as this Honorable Court may deem honorable and just.

The plaintiff is represented by Elizabeth A. Crawford of Kline & Specter, in Philadelphia.

The defendants are represented by Joseph H. Blum of Shook Hardy Bacon, in Philadelphia.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-02137

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

More News