Litigation Targeting Ultra-Processed Foods: Where Things Stand Now

The Foley Mansfield Ultra-Processed Foods (“UPF”) Litigation Team continues to monitor the developing UPF litigation involving claims against major food and beverage manufacturers. Although these cases remain in their early stages, recent developments reflect a broader effort by plaintiffs’ counsel to preserve and expand UPF theories through both individual personal-injury lawsuits and public-enforcement actions.

Pennsylvania: Closed Docket, Open Question

The Pennsylvania action, Martinez v. Kraft Heinz Company, Inc., et al., remains procedurally important even though the docket reflects that the case is closed and was terminated on December 1, 2025. Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint remains pending. The parties have submitted briefing on the motion, but the court has not yet issued a ruling.

Martinez was one of the earliest UPF personal-injury cases and remains a potential bellwether for how courts may treat amended UPF pleadings. If the court denies leave to amend, the Pennsylvania dismissal will remain an important defense-favorable development. If the court grants leave to amend, plaintiffs’ counsel may attempt to use the amended pleading as a roadmap for strengthening complaints in other jurisdictions.

California: Public-Enforcement Case Returns to State Court

The California action remains materially different from the individual personal-injury cases because it was brought by the People of the State of California, acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, rather than by an individual plaintiff. The complaint asserts claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and public nuisance statutes and seeks statewide injunctive relief, public nuisance abatement relief, and civil penalties.

Defendants removed the case to the Northern District of California, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The core removal issue was whether the State of California or the City and County of San Francisco was the real party in interest. Defendants argued that San Francisco was the true plaintiff because the City Attorney filed the action and the complaint focused, in part, on alleged local harms and healthcare costs in San Francisco. Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that the case was brought in the name of the People of the State of California to enforce state law and protect statewide public interests.

On April 23, 2026, Judge Jon S. Tigar granted plaintiff’s motion to remand. The Court concluded that the State was the real party in interest and that a State is not a citizen for diversity purposes [1]. In doing so, the court recognized that the complaint sought statewide injunctive relief and civil penalties under California law, not merely local damages for San Francisco.

From a defense perspective, the remand order suggests that future removal efforts may face challenges where a complaint is framed as a statewide consumer-protection or public-health enforcement action rather than a local damages dispute.

Louisiana: UPF Action Voluntarily Dismissed

The Louisiana action, Jenkins v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al., was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on March 30, 2026, and the court entered an order the same day dismissing all claims against all defendants, with each party bearing its own costs.

Mississippi and Florida: Rule 12 Motions Take Center Stage

The active individual personal-injury cases remain largely focused on Rule 12 motion practice. with the Mississippi and Florida actions serving as the primary vehicles for testing plaintiffs’ UPF theories at the pleading stage. In both matters, the parties have pursued coordinated briefing to avoid duplicative motion practice across the numerous defendants and to present common dismissal arguments through a single omnibus motion.

The Mississippi and Florida actions are currently the most significant active individual-plaintiff cases. In Lawton v. Kraft Heinz Company, et al., pending in the Southern District of Mississippi, the Court entered a briefing schedule for an omnibus motion to dismiss. Defendants’ omnibus motion is due May 1, 2026; plaintiff’s response is due June 2, 2026; and defendants’ reply is due June 23, 2026.

Similarly, in Muthusami v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al., pending in the Middle District of Florida, the parties jointly requested a consolidated Rule 12 briefing schedule. The court has permitted defendants to file a single omnibus motion to dismiss by June 17, 2026, with plaintiff’s response due August 17, 2026. [1] The Court relied on the real-party-in-interest doctrine and emphasized that allegations focused on a particular city do not necessarily make that city the true plaintiff, citing Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012), and People ex rel. City Att’y of L.A. v. HomeAway.com, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00692, 2023 WL 2497862 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2023).

Key Pressure Points for Food Manufacturers and What to Watch Next

These cases remain in an early but important stage. UPF litigation remains active and continues to evolve. The next major developments will likely come from the pending motion to amend in Martinez and the omnibus motions to dismiss in Lawton and Muthusami.

For food product manufacturers, the central defense theme remains the same: plaintiffs should be required to plead specific facts connecting a particular product, defendant, alleged defect, and injury. Until courts decide whether broad UPF allegations can satisfy those threshold requirements, manufacturers should be prepared for continued filings, amended pleadings, and efforts to expand these theories into new jurisdictions.

More About the Foley Mansfield UPF Litigation Team:

Elizabeth Sorenson Brotten is a Partner in Foley Mansfield’s Minneapolis office, a member of the firm’s Executive Committee, and the chair of the firm’s Product Liability Practice Group. She devotes her practice to defending product manufacturers, suppliers, and installers in high-risk product liability and toxic tort cases. She can be reached at ebrotten@foleymansfield.com.

Shelley K. Napolitano is the Managing Partner of Foley Mansfield’s New Orleans office and Co-Chair of the firm’s national Talc Practice Group. She defends product manufacturers, contractors, and premise owners in multidistrict product liability, toxic tort litigation, and also specializes in management of large-scale fact investigation projects, as well as corporate and expert deposition preparation. She can be reached at snapolitano@foleymansfield.com.

Alaina K. Jraige is an Associate in the Chicago office of Foley Mansfield. She defends manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and premises owners in product liability, toxic tort, and complex civil litigation matters throughout Illinois. She can be reached at ajraige@foleymansfield.com.