Rights Radio Features the Lead Attorney in the National Pet Food False Advertising Lawsuit. This law suit seeks class certification of a nationwide class of people from all states.
Topic: A nationwide class action lawsuit was launched in 2007 against leading pet food manufacturers and distributors for negligent and intentional misleading of the public about the actual content of commercial pet foods. The lawsuit alleges that major national pet food manufacturers, marketers and distributors advertise and promote their products as “Premium,” “Complete and Balanced” and other misleading slogans, even though their food products actually contain such Items as euthanized dogs and cats, restaurant grease, hair, hooves, and diseased animals, and other inedible garbage.
Guest: Catherine J. MacIvor, a partner at Maltzman Foreman, PA is the lead counsel in this case. Ms. MacIvor works tirelessly – often 24 hours at a stretch – to give guilty pet food companies their just rewards. She possesses substantial expertise in complex litigation. Throughout all her years as a litigator, she has maintained a winning track record. She has successfully defended breach of contract, maintenance and cure, wage claims, Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and personal injury cases and class actions in state and federal courts and at the Florida Supreme Court.
Additionally, Ms. MacIvor has developed expertise in emotional injury causes of action involving the transmission of infectious diseases such as the Norwalk virus. She’s a graduate of the University of Miami School of Law and listed in Who’s Who in America Law, 1998.
Here’s important background about the case:
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, 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.
Don’t miss this show!
To your empowerment!