The dockets for the lawsuits can be viewed here:

http://news.justia.com/cases/menu-foods/


The one you referenced is here:

http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/florida/flsdce/1:2007cv21221/295436/

They're doing some discovery at this point and the next hearing is scheduled on 1/15/08.

THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS1 OBFUSCATES THE LAW AND MISCHARACTERIZES THEPLAINTIFFS’ THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Plaintiffs in this case are non-litigious individuals from various backgrounds who brought this case out of principle – to simply seek to have the Defendants do the right thing by being honest with pet owners about the food and treats that they manufacture, market and sell.
They are not requesting this Court to regulate an industry,2 as the Defendants would have the Court believe; rather, they simply seek to hold the Defendants accountable for false, unfair and deceptive advertising intended to lead unsuspecting Plaintiffs to purchase food and treats which are materially different from the Defendants’ advertising and for the illness and deaths of their cats and dogs.
These are not just “animals” to the Plaintiffs, they are family. The Defendants know that, capitalize on and intentionally profit from that bond. The Defendants continuously conduct market research concerning the strong emotional ties between cat and dog lovers and their pets so that their almost inconceivable profit margin can grow to even more staggering amounts every year while continually cutting costs at the expense of the cats and dogs they profess to care about so much. The Defendants deceive the Plaintiffs into thinking that they are buying a pet food that  they are not, which has damaged the Plaintiffs because they did not get what the Defendants marketed and what they thought they were purchasing. Unlike a person who thought they purchased a car that was marketed as a Mercedes, but was really a Hyundai, the deception at
issue involves the Plaintiffs’ completely vulnerable living, breathing and much loved companions.

Their cats and dogs are completely dependent on the Plaintiffs to provide food to not just to sustain life, but so that their companions will be healthy, happy, thrive and live long lives. To these Plaintiffs, the Defendants’ deception is unforgiveable not only because they did not get what they thought they purchased, but also because the Plaintiffs’ cats and dogs are not as healthy as they should be, have become ill or died from the Defendants’ pet food. The Plaintiffs feel anguish and guilt about this because had they known the real contents of the Defendant Manufacturers’ pet food, they would never have paid for and fed this inedible, toxic garbage to their highly vulnerable cats and dogs. They feel guilty because they were responsible for
providing their companions with food so that they would thrive, not food that bears no relation to what is marketed and which has made them ill or worse. In this case, the Plaintiffs simply want the Defendants to right their wrong by offering a food to all consumers who love their cats and dogs that contains human-grade quality food, which is exactly what they market, but do not sell.3

One would think that is not a lot to ask, but apparently asking these Defendants to do the right thing is a lot to ask indeed.


(snip)

I. The Defendants are only minimally regulated

The Defendants make the absurd leap that because the Plaintiffs have brought suit for the harm caused by the Defendants’ unlawful marketing practices and the illness and deaths of their cats and dogs that the Plaintiffs are requesting this Court to impose a “super-regulatory” regime over a handful of Defendants. [DE 336 pp. 21-22]. That is flatly wrong and a complete mischaracterization of the TAC. While the Defendants broadly claim that state and federal administrative agencies take an “active” role in regulating and “approving much5 of the complained of activity,” that is not the case. Despite the bold pronouncement that these alleged state and federal regulations shield the Defendants from liability from their unlawful, false and deceptive marketing, they provide very little support for that conclusion of law and, in fact, the statutes and cases that they cite undermine it. To the extent that these regulations exist, they are
minimal at both the state and federal level and while the Defendants’ assert that both federal and state administrative agencies take an “active role” in regulating the pet food industry, these administrative agencies are not as actively involved as the Defendants contend. [DE 336 pp. 24-25].