TORONTO - The legal woes continued to mount Wednesday for pet food manufacturer Menu Foods as the company at the centre of one of the largest consumer-product recalls ever in North America found itself facing at least six class-action lawsuits from angry dog and cat owners.
Two Los Angeles residents who allege their cats got sick from eating tainted food from the Mississauga, Ont., company filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court seeking class-action status and unspecified damages.
The filing brings to at least six the total number of such lawsuits being prepared across Canada and the U.S. The lawsuits are based on allegations not proven in court.
On March 20, Chicago law firm Blim and Edelson was the first to launch a potential class-action lawsuit against the embattled pet-food maker.
To date, the firm has had more than 2,000 calls and e-mails from angry pet owners, most of them complaining their pets had died after eating the tainted food, said lawyer Jay Edelson, who described the situation as a "mass tragedy" for pet lovers.
"We feel like Menu Foods has not stepped up to the plate,'' Edelson said.
"The most they've done is pay a little bit of lip service. They have to, at the very least, reimburse people for their vet bills, for funeral expenses, any out-of-pocket money.
"But what we really think has to happen is there has to be a full accounting of what Menu Foods knew and when it knew it. That's what our clients are really demanding.''
The company did not return calls Wednesday.
Menu Foods has recalled 95 brands of the company's "cuts and gravy'' style dog and cat food -- 60 million cans and pouches in all -- for fear they contained traces of aminopterin, a rat poison banned in the U.S.
Tests were continuing to confirm the source of the contamination, but wheat gluten imported from China is considered a prime suspect.
The company has only confirmed 16 pet deaths caused by the recalled product, but a spokesman admitted this week that the number is likely to rise.
Sam Bornstein said Menu Foods is prepared to "take responsibility'' in cases where pet owners can demonstrate that the recalled food led to a sick animal and that they incurred expenses as a result.
Toronto law firms Rochon Genova and Himelfarb Proszanski jointly launched a proposed class-action lawsuit last week that seeks $60 million in damages.
Lawyer Joel Rochon said his firm has received hundreds of queries from pet owners who fear their cat or dog was affected by the tainted food.
"It's looking like the case is gathering momentum and the problem may be much bigger than any of us had anticipated.''
Another firm, Sutts, Strosberg of Windsor, Ont., also filed suit last week seeking $35 million in damages. Lawyer Jay Strosberg, whose office has had "well over'' 100 calls, said he took on the case as a pet owner and animal lover.
"We don't have children, so our dog is kind of like our child,'' Strosberg said.
"I can only imagine what a pet owner must feel like when he or she found out that their dog or cat is sick or dead because of something that was fed to them.''
Progressive Law Group in Madison, Wis., said it had fielded calls and e-mails from about 1,800 concerned pet owners. Of the roughly 600 claims analyzed by the firm so far, 260 involve dead pets, said lawyer Frank Jablonski.
The firm filed suit on behalf of client Jacqueline Johnson, who has spent US$3,000 in veterinary bills for her sick cat Gumbie.
Seattle firm Myers and Co. is also seeking class-action status for its lawsuit, and the number of people contacting the law firm is growing every day, said lawyer Tom Baisch.
