A federal judge in Syracuse, New York, has taken action against a lawyer known for filing numerous food and beverage labeling lawsuits. The lawyer, Spencer Sheehan of Great Neck, New York, has been ordered to explain why he should not be sanctioned for bringing a “frivolous” proposed class action against Starbucks. U.S. District Judge Frederick Scullin criticized Sheehan for repeatedly filing unserious lawsuits and warned him about the pleading requirements for such claims.
The case in question involved Sheehan’s allegation that Starbucks’ French roast ground 100% Arabica coffee was not genuinely 100% ground coffee due to the addition of potassium. However, Judge Scullin dismissed Sheehan’s case against Starbucks, stating that it lacked merit. Sheehan has previously faced the threat of sanctions from other federal judges in New York, who also cautioned him against filing baseless lawsuits.
Frustrated with Sheehan’s persistent behavior, Judge Scullin has given him until July 28 to demonstrate why he should not face sanctions in the Starbucks case for violating a federal court rule that prohibits lawsuits with no chance of success. Sheehan has yet to respond to this order, and neither Starbucks nor its attorneys at Sheppard Mullin have provided any comments regarding the matter.
See also: Walmart Wins Lawsuit Challenging Lack of Fudge and Mint in Fudge Mint Cookies
Sheehan, often referred to as the “vanilla vigilante” by the New York Post, has gained notoriety for his extensive filing of lawsuits related to labeling issues. In a separate case, Sheehan disclosed that he had filed over 500 lawsuits between January 2020 and April 2023. Among his claims, he argued that Kellogg’s Fudge Mint cookies, frosted chocolate fudge, and strawberry Pop Tarts misrepresented their ingredients. He also challenged Apple’s iPhone water resistance claims and alleged that mayonnaise sold by Walmart Inc contained insufficient olive oil.
Get ahead of the competition – submit your job openings with BCG Attorney Search today.
In addition to the Starbucks case, Sheehan is facing potential sanctions in a separate lawsuit against Walmart over the mayonnaise labeling issue. A federal judge in Chicago described Sheehan as a “wrecking ball” whose cases burden others with unnecessary attorney fees. U.S. District Judge Steven Seeger commented on Sheehan’s notoriety, pointing out that many of his complaints failed to survive in court.
While Sheehan has defended his labeling lawsuits as reasonable in the past, claiming that he has never faced formal sanctions, his track record and the repeated warnings from federal judges indicate otherwise. Judge Scullin’s order for Sheehan to justify his actions in the Starbucks case may mark a turning point in the lawyer’s career, potentially leading to significant consequences if sanctions are imposed.
It remains to be seen how Sheehan will respond to the court’s order and whether he can provide a satisfactory explanation for his actions. This case serves as a reminder that the legal system takes frivolous lawsuits seriously and that attorneys must adhere to the standards of professionalism and diligence expected of them. As the legal proceedings continue, stakeholders will closely monitor the outcome and its implications for Sheehan’s future practice.
Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.