Conagra Fails To Meet Burden Needed To Dismiss, Transfer Exploding Cooking Spray Lawsuits, Panel Says

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Conagra Exploding Cooking Spray Lawsuit Overview: 

• Who: An Illinois appellate panel rejected Conagra’s attempt to have nearly 40 lawsuits related to exploding cans of its cooking spray dismissed or transferred from the Circuit Court of Cook County to Wabash County.
• Why: The panel ruled Conagra did not meet its burden of proving it would be in the best public or private interest to have the cases transferred or dismissed.
• Where: The ruling was made in the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.

An Illinois appellate panel has ruled against Conagra and its affiliated manufacturers’ request to dismiss or transfer to a different Illinois state court almost 40 lawsuits claiming its cooking spray cans exploded and caused fires and injuries. 

The panel determined that Conagra and the manufacturers had not fulfilled their burden of showing it would be in the public and private best interest to have the cases transferred or dismissed. 

Conagra and the manufacturers wanted out-of-state plaintiffs complaints dismissed and to have in-state plaintiffs lawsuits sent to Wabash County. The panel, however, ruled they would remain in the Circuit Court of Cook County, where they are currently consolidated. 

The panel agreed with Conagra’s demonstration that the plaintiff’s home forums would be less congested than Cook County court and that a trial court would allow a jury to view the scenes, but that was it. 

Panel Ruled Cook County ‘Not Inconvenient’ For Any Of The Parties

Conagra is headquartered in Cook County, which the panel ruled is not inconvenient for any of the parties. The company’s manufacturer co defendants are also an equal distance away from Cook County and Wabash County courts, the panel said. 

Plaintiffs, meanwhile, have submitted 50 affidavits from witnesses stating it would not be inconvenient for the trial to be held in Cook County, the panel said. 

“Defendants, at the very least, could have submitted affidavits from their own employees averring that Cook County was an inconvenient forum but failed to do so. Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs’ chosen forum is inconvenient and that another forum is more convenient,” the panel said.

Conagra had also argued that plaintiffs’ home courts have a stronger interest because the injuries occurred there, the panel ruled Cook County and Illinois residents had a strong interest as well since the products are being manufactured there.

“In these product liability cases, any local interest is largely supplanted by a more general interest in the safety of defendants’ cooking spray products,” the panel said.

Last year, the Ninth Circuit revived a separate class action lawsuit filed against Conagra claiming the company falsely advertises its chicken products as “natural.” 

Have you been injured by an exploding can of Conagra cooking spray? Let us know in the comments! 

The Conagra Exploding Cooking Spray Lawsuit is Bearden v. Conagra Foods Inc., Case No. 1-21-0234, in the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District. 

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Recall Check: Tastykake Cupcakes Recalled Due To Potential Fragments of Metal Mesh Wire
• Philip Morris Can’t Block New Cigarette Warning Label Requirements, Rules Judge
• Conagra Must Show Chicken Labels Inspected, Approved by Regulators, Says Ninth Circuit
• Do You Qualify: Uber Upfront Pricing Class Action Lawsuit Investigation