Loading...
U.S. District Judge Steven C. Seeger of the Northern District of Illinois, known for his sharp critiques of attorneys, has turned his attention to a lawyer engaged in legal battles against food companies over their labeling practices. In a recent opinion issued on May 15, Judge Seeger dismissed a lawsuit brought by attorney Spencer Sheehan, who claimed that Walmart’s Great Value mayonnaise labeled as “with olive oil” created a false impression that the product contained higher quantities of olive oil than other oils.
According to Sheehan’s suit, consumers expected a significant amount of olive oil in the mayonnaise and argued that the labeling was misleading. However, Judge Seeger was quick to dismiss the case, stating that the complaint had long exceeded its shelf life and was past its prime from the moment it arrived in the federal courthouse. The judge also referred to the plaintiff’s counsel’s repeated use of this theory in various cases, highlighting their lack of success in the district. He characterized the complaint as joining a “warehouse of complaints” filed by the lawyer that were unsuitable for public consumption.
In addition to dismissing the case, Judge Seeger ordered Sheehan to demonstrate why he should not be held responsible for the attorney fees incurred by Walmart, the defendant in the lawsuit. The judge further required Sheehan to provide a detailed spreadsheet outlining all cases filed since 2020 in which he claimed that consumers expected a more significant amount of an ingredient in products. The spreadsheet should include the outcomes of any motions to dismiss.
Law360 provided coverage of Judge Seeger’s opinion and Sheehan’s response, in which the attorney argued that his cases were always supported by law or nonfrivolous arguments. Sheehan emphasized that he had never faced any sanctions in the hundreds of cases he had filed and cited “numerous other courts” that had found merit in claims falsely implying higher quantities of valued ingredients in food products.
Ready to make a change in your legal career? BCG Attorney Search can help you find the perfect job.
This was not the first time Judge Seeger dismissed cases filed by Sheehan alleging misleading labeling. The judge commented on the lawyer’s notoriety for filing consumer labeling cases, stating that many of these complaints had suffered significant setbacks or outright dismissals. Judge Seeger expressed his desire for the carousel of cases involving Sheehan to come to a halt, as the attorney had become a “wrecking ball” when it came to imposing attorneys’ fees on others. He demanded that Sheehan show who should bear the financial burden of the litigation.
Get JD Journal in Your Mail
Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!
Judge Seeger has previously made headlines with his outspoken critiques. He firmly stated that “judge shopping ain’t a thing here,” criticized unnecessary potshots and hyperbole in a lawyer’s motion, and slammed an emergency motion seeking to halt the sale of knockoff unicorn art during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In response to the order to show cause, Sheehan submitted his reply on May 27, asserting that other judges did not share the same negative reactions to his lawsuits. He questioned why, despite the significant number of cases he had filed against major food companies and their high-profile legal representation, sanctions had never been imposed on him.
As of now, Sheehan has not responded to requests for comments regarding this matter. The case in question is Guzman v. Walmart Inc.
