Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/224/382/576310/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:53:32
Document Index: 396900600

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 2521', '§ 1016', '§ 1446', 'art. 421', 'art. 561', 'art. 561', 'art. 1201', 'art. 1672']

Carrie Badon; Ray Badon; Russell Badon; Joe Mae Badon-roberson; Scotty Joseph Badon, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. R J R Nabisco Inc; Liggett & Meyers Tobacco Co; American Brands Inc; Philip Morris Companies Inc; B a T Industries, Ltd; Pelican Cigar Co; Malone & Hyde Inc; Schlesinger Wholesalers & Automotive Cigarette Service Inc; Philip Morris Inc; R J Reynolds Tobacco Co; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co; Batus Holdings Inc; American Tobacco Co; Liggett Group Inc; Brooke Group Limited; Hill & Knowlton Inc; Tobacco Industry Research Committee; Council for Tobacco Research Usa Inc; Tobacco Institute Inc; Fortune Brands Inc; Liggett & Myers Inc, Defendants-appellees, 224 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2000) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fifth Circuit › 2000 › Carrie Badon; Ray Badon; Russell Badon; Joe Mae Badon-roberson; Scotty Joseph Badon, Plaintiffs-appe...
Carrie Badon; Ray Badon; Russell Badon; Joe Mae Badon-roberson; Scotty Joseph Badon, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. R J R Nabisco Inc; Liggett & Meyers Tobacco Co; American Brands Inc; Philip Morris Companies Inc; B a T Industries, Ltd; Pelican Cigar Co; Malone & Hyde Inc; Schlesinger Wholesalers & Automotive Cigarette Service Inc; Philip Morris Inc; R J Reynolds Tobacco Co; Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co; Batus Holdings Inc; American Tobacco Co; Liggett Group Inc; Brooke Group Limited; Hill & Knowlton Inc; Tobacco Industry Research Committee; Council for Tobacco Research Usa Inc; Tobacco Institute Inc; Fortune Brands Inc; Liggett & Myers Inc, Defendants-appellees, 224 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2000)
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 224 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2000)
The district court denied the motion to remand in an April 17, 1998 memorandum ruling. The court held that the removal was timely because the one year removal limit stated in section 1446(b) applied only to the second paragraph of section 1446(b) and in this case timeliness of removal was governed by the first paragraph of section 1446(b) because the case initially filed in May 1994 was removable. Alternatively, citing Kinabrew v. Emco-Wheaton, Inc., 936 F. Supp. 351 (M.D. La. 1996), the court held that by deliberately withholding citation for more than three and a half years plaintiffs waived the one year limit of section 1446(b), even if it were otherwise applicable. The district court next held that the Louisiana distributors were fraudulently joined, applying the "summary judgment-like" methodology which our decisions have approved for deciding such issues. See, e.g., Burchette v. Cargill, 48 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 1995). The court noted that the only bases of recovery plaintiffs had asserted against the Louisiana distributors were conspiracy, redhibition and breach of the warranty of fitness. As to the conspiracy claim, the court concluded that on the basis of the distributors' affidavits and "in light of the plaintiffs' lack of evidence" there was no reasonable possibility of recovery against the distributors. As to the redhibition and breach of warranty claims the court likewise concluded there was no reasonable possibility of recovery against the Louisiana distributors. The court noted that the asserted defect in the cigarettes was not redhibitory or within article 2475 as the cigarettes were not claimed to have had "the type of functional failure that is characteristic of a redhibitory defect," or "of a breach of warranty of reasonable fitness for intended use," and that La. Civ. Code art. 2521 barredrecovery because the dangers of smoking tobacco products should have been discovered by a reasonably prudent buyer. The court likewise concluded that the cigarettes were fit to be used for their intended use of smoking and that the distributors here did not have a relationship to the consumer and manufacturers which was analogous to that of the distributor defendant in Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes Benz of North America, 262 So. 2d 377 (La. 1972). The court accordingly concluded that the Louisiana distributors were fraudulently joined, and denied the motion to remand.
In 1988 section 1446(b) was amended by adding the "except" clause at the end of its second paragraph. Pub. L. 100-702, § 1016(b) (2), 102 Stat. 4669 (Nov. 19, 1988).7 Apart from the 1988 amendmentadding the "except clause" (and substituting "notice of removal" for "petition for removal"), and a 1965 substitution of "thirty days" for "twenty days",8 the present language of section 1446(b) has been unchanged since it was substantially rewritten in 1949.9
We have clearly held that the "except" clause applies only to cases governed by the second paragraph of section 1446(b), "ie. only to cases that are not initially removable." New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel, 142 F.3d 873, 886 (5th Cir. 1998). Accord, Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 170 F.3d 583, 590 (6th Cir. 1999) ("the one-year limitation on removal of diversity cases applies only to those that were not initially removable"); Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313, 1316 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 407 (1998) ("The first paragraph of § 1446(b) addresses a defendant's right to promptly remove when he is served. The second paragraph addresses a defendant's right to remove beyond the initial period of 30 days, if the case only became removable sometime after the initial commencement of the action. Only the latter type of removal is barred by the one-year exception").
Plaintiffs argue that because removal was predicated on fraudulent joinder and depended on piercing their pleadings that therefore the case was not initially removable and is accordingly governed by the second paragraph of section 1446(b). We reject this contention. Ever since a time many years prior to 1988 we have consistently recognized that diversity removal may be based on evidence outside the pleadings to establish that the plaintiff has no possibility of recovery on the claim or claims asserted against the named resident defendant and that hence such defendant is fraudulently joined and his citizenship must be disregarded for jurisdictional purpose. See, e.g., Keating v. Shell Chemical Co., 610 F.2d 328, 333 (5th Cir. 1980); Burden v. General Dynamics Corp., 60 F.3d 213, 217 (5th Cir. 1995).10 See also, e.g., LeJeune v. Shell Oil Co., 950 F.2d 267, 271 (5th Cir. 1992) ("In this circuit, a removing party's claim of fraudulent joinder to destroy diversify is viewed as similar to a motion for summary judgment. . . . A court is to pierce the pleadings to determine whether, under controlling statelaw, the non-removing party has a valid claim against the non-diverse parties"); Carrier v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 893 F.2d 98, 100 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 60 (1990) ("When determining fraudulent joinder, the district court may look to the facts as established by summary judgment evidence as well as the controlling state law").11 Thus it is clear that although a state court complaint on its face may allege a state law claim against an in-state defendant that does not preclude it from being removable (by the non-resident defendant), when filed, if the plaintiff's pleading is pierced and it is shown that as a matter of law there is no reasonable basis for predicting that the plaintiff might establish liability on that claim against the in-state defendant.
Moreover, plaintiffs' argument in this respect ignores the fact that section 1446(b) is concerned only with the timing of removal, and not at all with what must be shown in order to remove or how that showing may or must be made. The first paragraph of section 1446(b) sets forth the general rule, that the notice of removal must be filed within thirty days from "the service of summons upon the defendant" and its "receipt" of "the initial pleading" on which the action is based.12 However, the second paragraph of section 1446(b) provides that, under the there stated circumstance, the starting date of the thirty day period within which the notice of removal must be filed shall be later than the date provided in the first paragraph. Thus, the second paragraph states that " [i]f the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable" then the thirty day period commences upon "receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable." It is wholly evident that the purpose of the second paragraph is to extend the time for filing notice of removal under the stated circumstance, and not to in any event shorten it to less than it would be under the first paragraph. The "except" clause, added to the end of the second paragraph in 1988 and applicable only to that paragraph, thus says in effect that the extended time for filing notice of removal provided for in the second paragraph is not available for removal on the basis of diversity if the case was commenced more than one year before the removal. Here, the defendants clearly filed their notice of removal within the time specified in the first paragraph of section 1446(b), so their removal notice was timely. They do not, and do not need to, invoke the second paragraph's extended filing period.13
We agree with the district court that, considering defendants' affidavits "in light of the plaintiffs' lack of evidence," there is no reasonable basis for predicting that plaintiffs might establish liability in their conspiracy claim against the in-state defendants. Fields, 182 F.3d at 357; Burden, 60 F.3d at 217. As noted, our precedent establishes that "a removing party's claim of fraudulent joinder to destroy diversity is viewed as similar to a motion for summary judgment." LeJeune, 950 F.2d at 271. See also, e.g., Fields, 182 F.3d at 356 ("the district court is authorized 'to use a summary judgment-like procedure for disposing of fraudulent pleading claims'"); Burchett, 48 F.3d at 176 (same); Keating, 610 F.2d at 333 (remanding to determine " [b]y summary judgment or otherwise" whether joinder was fraudulent). While such a procedure requires that "all disputed questions of fact" be "resolved in favor of the nonremoving party," Carriere, 893 F.2d at 100 (emphasis added), " [a]s with a summary judgment motion, in determining diversity the mere assertion of 'metaphysical doubt as to the material facts' in insufficient to create an issue if there is no basis for those facts." Jernigan, 989 F.2d at 816 (footnote omitted, citing Matsushita v. Zenith Radio Corp., 106 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (1986)). So also as with a summary judgment motion:
" [W]e resolve factual controversies in favor of the nonmoving party, but onlywhen there is an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts. We do not, however, in the absence of any proof, assume that the nonmoving party could or would prove the necessary facts." Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (first sentence emphasis added).
The district court distinguished the case of Media Production Consultants, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., 262 La. 80, 2652 So. 2d 377 (1972) (hereafter "Media"), in which the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a manufacturer, despite a lack of privity, was subject to liability to the ultimate consumer for breach of article 2475's "warranty of reasonable fitness for the product's intended use", and that the distributor not in privity with the consumer but who nevertheless, as was the case under the special facts there, " [i]nsofar as the American consumer is concerned . . . occupies the position of a manufacturer," "therefore" had the same "liability to the American consumer" as does "the manufacturer" of the defective product. Id. at 380.19 The district court further determined that as " [t]he danger of smoking tobacco products are well known in the community . . . [t]herefore any alleged defects in the cigarettes were known to Carrie Badon, or should have been discovered by a reasonably prudent buyer, at the time that Carrie Badon purchased said cigarettes," and accordingly under article 2521 (see note 18 supra) such defects were not warranted against.
The first question is whether the alleged defect in cigarettes-namely that smoking them is addictive and seriously harmful to health-is a redhibitory defect or one warranted against under article 2475, despite the fact that the physical process of smoking the cigarettes is not functionally impaired and they function as intended by their manufacturers. We are aware of no Louisiana appellate court decisions addressing this issue or any clearly analogous to it. Federal district courts in Louisiana have divided on this issue. In addition to the decision below, Judge Trimble also concluded in Lonkowski v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 96-1192, 1996 WL 888182 (W.D. La. Dec. 10, 1996) that this was not a redhibitory defect. A contrary conclusion was reached in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co., 959 F. Supp. 340, 343-44 (E.D. La. 1996) (Berrigan, J.). However, on remand of Scott, the Louisiana trial court sustained the distributors' exception of no cause of action. See Scott v. American Tobacco Co., 709 So. 2d 1018, 1019 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1998).20
The next question is whether any action for redhibition or breach of implied warrantyis barred because as a matter of law the dangers of smoking cigarettes were common knowledge and hence were either known to the plaintiff Carrie Badon or should have been discovered by a normally prudent buyer within the meaning of article 2521. Again, we are aware of no Louisiana appellate court decision resolving this or a closely analogous issue. Lonkowski and Vickrey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., No. 96-2612 (W.D. La. Apr. 3, 1997) (Little, C.J.) hold that article 2521 precludes relief; Scott is to the contrary. This court has held, in a Texas products liability action, that "the dangers of cigarette smoking have long been known to the community. See, e.g., Raysdon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 849 F.2d 230, 236 (6th Cir. 1988) . . . therefore, defendants had no duty to warn . . . of the dangers of smoking." Allgood v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 80 F.3d 168, 172 (5th Cir. 1996). In subsequent unpublished decisions wehave applied Allgood to a Texas products liability case where nicotine addiction was allegedly caused by smoking, Hulsey v. American Brands, 139 F.3d 898 (Table), No. 97-40694 (5th Cir. Mar. 2, 1998), affirming Hulsey v. American Brands, No. C97-003, 1997 WL 271755 (S.D. Tx. Apr. 7, 1997), and to a Louisiana Products Liability Act suit based on failure to warn of the dangers of "loose tobacco." Hutchin v. American Tobacco Co., 116 F.3d 477 (Table), No. 96-31154 (5th Cir. Apr. 18, 1997) ("the health risks of smoking have long been common knowledge . . . Given such, the appellees had no duty to warn of the dangers"). And in other Louisiana products liability suits against cigarette manufacturers federal district courts in Louisiana have made similar "common knowledge" holdings, as has also at least one Louisiana trial court. See Todd v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 924 F. Supp. 59, 62 (W.L. La. 1996) (Little J.) (loose tobacco to be rolled into cigarettes by consumer); Christen v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (No. 1:96-2901, W.D. La, July 1, 1998) (Melancon, J.); Washington v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp, et al., No. 15,159 (20th Judicial District Court, West Feliciana Parish, Oct. 23, 1998) (Ramshur, J.) (sustaining no cause of action exception to suit against cigarette manufacturers for "failure to warn . . . about the dangers of nicotine and manipulated nicotine levels"). See also Ploch v. City of St. Louis, 138 S.W.2d 1020, 1023 (Mo. Sup. Ct. 1940, en banc) ("The nicotine [in cigarettes] is harmful. . . . It is common knowledge that . . . cigarette [s] tempt the young to indulgences which produce tobacco addicts").
On the other hand, in American Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 429 (Tex. 1997), the Texas Supreme Court held that although "the general health dangers attributable to cigarettes were commonly known as a matter of law by the community when Grinnell began smoking" in 1952, it could not "conclude, however, that the specific danger of nicotine addiction was common knowledge" at that particular time. See also id. at 430, noting that the Surgeon General's report declaring cigarette smoking addictive due to nicotine was published in 1988; Rogers v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 557 N.E.2d 1045, 1054 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (" [t]here is no basis for our judicially noticing what the ordinary consumer's knowledge concerning the addictive qualities of cigarettes may have been . . . in 1940. . . . It was not until 1988 that the Surgeon General published a report informing of the addictive nature of cigarettes").21
Arguably relevant here is the decision in Gilboy v. American Tobacco Co., 582 So. 2d 1263 (La. 1991), in which Gilboy brought a tort suit against cigarette manufacturers, prior to the effective date of the Louisiana Products Liability Act, for damages for lung and brain cancer allegedly caused by his smoking cigarettes, which had commenced in 1940 or 1941 when he was twelve or thirteen. He proceeded on the theory that cigarettes were unreasonably dangerous per se under the doctrine of Halphen v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 484 So. 2d 110 (La. 1986). The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants and the court of appeals affirmed. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that whether cigarettes are unreasonably dangerous per se presented a factual issue inappropriate for summary judgment. Gilboy at 1264. The Court went on to state:
The remaining question presented respecting plaintiffs' redhibition and breach of implied warranty claims against the in-state distributors is whether these claimsare plainly meritless because the distributors are not manufacturers of the cigarettes and Badon did not purchase the cigarettes from the distributors but rather from the retailers to whom the distributors had sold them. The only decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court which appears to address the issue of privity in this respect is Media. See note 19 and accompanying test, supra. It is not entirely evident to us that Media clearly resolves the issue. We initially note that although Media apparently involved only a breach of implied warranty action under article 2475, the Louisiana Supreme Court has construed it as also governing redhibition claims. Rey v. Cuccia, 298 So. 2d 840, 842, 845 (La. 1974) (Tate, J.). See also Datamatic v. International Bus. Mach. Corp., 795 F.2d 458, 462-64 (5th Cir. 1986) (Rubin, J.); Smith v. Max Thieme Chevrolet Co., 315 So. 2d 82, 86 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1975) (Dennis, J.). We likewise treat Media as fully applicable to redhibition as well as article 2475 claims. That leaves two theoretically possible questions concerning the application of Media here. First, whether it entirely obviates any privity requirement for such actions, or only eliminates that requirement as to a defendant who is either the manufacturer of the product or a distributor thereof who in some special sense " [i]nsofar as the . . . consumer is concerned . . . occupies the position of manufacturer." And, second, if the latter is the correct reading of Media, whether the distributors here could be said to occupy the position of manufacturer, in the sense that the distributor in Media did.
As to the latter inquiry, we hold that the distributors here did not occupy a position, so far as concerns consumers, analogous to that of the distributor in Media. There the manufacturer was "a foreign [German] corporation not qualified to do business in the United States;" here the manufacturer defendants are all United States corporations, three with permits to do business in Louisiana and all served with process and made parties hereto. In Media the sole distributor had "the total responsibility for marketing in the United States;" here the allegations of the complaint and amended complaint make clear that that is not the case as to the in-state distributors, even respecting Louisiana. In Media, the distributor's name appeared on the owner's service policy and on the owner's manual and it "prepares the automobiles for placement;" here, the distributors merely distribute the cigarettes in the original sealed and labled packages in which they are received. See, e.g., Arnold v. Fremin, 538 So. 2d 624 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1988).23
This, then, leaves the question of whether Media totally eliminated any privity requirement in redhibition and article 2475 claims even as against those who were not, and did not occupy the position of, manufacturers of the product. We conclude that the facially most plausible reading of Media is that it does not hold that privity is not required in redhibition or article 2475 actions against a defendant who is not, and does not occupy the position of, the product's manufacturer. Only this reading accounts for the court's discussion of the facts demonstrating that the distributor there " [i]nsofar as the American consumer is concerned . . . occupies the position of manufacturer." If the distributor would have been liable anyway that discussion would be wholly unnecessary. Moreover, it is clear that the "occupies the position of manufacturer" conclusion is the predicate for the imposition of liability, because the next sentence says " [w]e hold, therefore, that the liability of MBNA [the distributor] to the American consumer is that of the manufacturer" (emphasis added). The inference is that the ordinary distributor has no such liability absent privity. This approach is consistent with the Court's previous recitation of the argumentof the consumer-plaintiff there, which it ultimately accepts, viz:
However, Louisiana Court of Appeals decisions appear to be divided as to whether Media dispenses with any privity requirement in all redhibition and article 2475 actions or dispenses with privity only as to suits against the manufacturer of the defective product or a party occupying the position of manufacturer so far as concerns the ultimate purchaser. See, e.g., Grimaldi Construction Inc. v. J.P. & Sons Contractors, 686 So. 2d 935, 940 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1996) (Media totally dispenses with privity); Arnold (Media limited to defendants who are either manufacturers or occupy the position of manufacturers). Similarly divided are the decisions of the United States District Courts in Louisiana. See Scott, supra (Media totally dispenses with privity); Morgan v. United States Tobacco Co. Inc. et al., No. 97-0280 (W.D. La. Apr. 17, 1997) (Little, C.J.) ("When a distributor occupies the position of a manufacturer as far as the consumer is concerned, but only then, Louisiana courts have found that distributor liable for breach of implied warranty," citing Media, and "our examination of Louisiana law forces us to conclude that a state-law action based on an alleged breach of the implied warranties, of fitness and against redhibitory defects, cannot be maintained against a distributor that did not sell to the plaintiff, and does not stand in the shoes of the manufacturer"); In re Gas Water Heater Products Liability Litigation, No. 96-2484, 1996 WL 732525 (E.D. La. Dec. 12, 1996) (Duval, J.) (same).
Under Louisiana law a civil action is commenced by filing the complaint. La. Code Civ. Proc., art. 421. Until recently, there was no requirement that citation issue or any other action be taken in the suit within a specified time of filing except that an action was deemed "abandoned" if no steps were taken in its prosecution for five years. Id., art. 561A(1). In 1997 art. 561(A) (1) was amended so that its five year period was changed to three years, effective July 1, 1998; and, provisions were added requiring request for citation within 90 days, id., art. 1201(c), and authorizing dismissal for failure to do so, id., art. 1672c, each stated to be "applicable only to suits filed on and after" the effective date of the amendatory act, namely January 1, 1998. In an affidavit filed below, plaintiffs' counsel stated that in May 1994 he was aware of the suit filed by the Mississippi attorney general against tobacco companies, settlement of which was subsequently announced in June 1997, as well as "being aware of other events surrounding the tobacco industry, such as 'whistle-blowers', congressional hearings and class-action lawsuits," and that in the instant case service of process was withheld "to take advantage of the anticipated discovery process, specifically including the document production, that was certain to occur in other venues" (without, however, stating any explanation of why or how withholding of citation was necessary or helpful for such purpose) and "not . . . for the purpose of manipulating or avoiding removed jurisdiction," and that process was finally issued because of the above mentioned 1997 amendments to the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure "to avoid any argument that the present action should be dismissed for want of prosecution or failure to make timely service of process."
"In Louisiana, certain distributors have been held liable for breach of the warranty of fitness. See Media Production Consultants, Inc., v. Mercedes Benz of N. America, Inc., 262 So. 2d 377, 381 (La. 1972). The Media Production court held that an automobile buyer could recover under the warranty of fitness from the automobile distributor. Id. The court concluded that notwithstanding the absence of privity between it and the consumer, the distributor occupied the position of manufacturer and thus incurred the same liability as a manufacturer. . . .In the present case, it is plausible that as major state distributors of cigarettes in Louisiana, the non-diverse "distributors" could be considered "manufacturers" under the Media Production test given their major role in the distribution of cigarettes in Louisiana."
The 30 day period in no event begins to run prior to service of process on the defendant. See Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, 119 S. Ct. 1322 (1999). If the defendant has been served with process, filing of the initial pleading in state court may constitute "receipt" of that pleading by defendant if the rules of the state court do not require service of that pleading. See id. at 1328-29.
We also note the passing remarks in State v. Heidenhain, 42 La. Ann. 483, 486, 7 So. 621, 622 (1890), that for "those who have acquired the habit" cigarette smoking is "almost indispensable" and in Lionel's Cigar Store v. McFarland, 162 La. 956, 973, 111 So. 341, 347 (1927), referring to cigarette smokers as " [t]he addicted or habituated users."
"Louisiana has aligned itself with the consumer-protection rule, by allowing a consumer without privity to recover, whether the suit be strictly in tort or upon implied warranty. Marine Ins. Co. v. Strecker [234 La. 522, 100 So. 2d 493 (1958)], supra; LeBlanc v. Louisiana Coca Cola Bottling Co., 221 La. 919, 60 So. 2d 873 (1952)." Id. at 381.
However, we conclude that this language must be understood, in light of what has gone before, to refer to plaintiff's lack of privity with the manufacturer or the party who created the defect. That analysis is supported by the cases cited. The Strecker case was a negligence suit by a tenant of a building against a contractor "to recover damages caused to him by the fall of a cabinet installed by the contractor for the owner," it being alleged "that the cabinet fell as a result of the defendant's negligence 'in failing to properly install and secure the wall cabinet' . . .". Id., 100 So. 2d at 494. In LeBlanc a party who consumed a Coca Cola containing a housefly brought suit "against Louisiana Coca Cola Bottling Company, the manufacturer and distributor of the beverage." Id., 60 So. 2d at 873-74. The Coca Cola had been purchased by a friend of the plaintiff's from a retail grocery. Id. at 876. The Court there noted that "a case of this sort is, in its essence, grounded upon the manufacturer's failure to comply with the warranty of wholesomeness." Id. at 875.