Baby food makers go after 9-year-old boy with autism for $600,000+ after dismissal of case

WASHINGTON (7News) — Many of the largest baby food makers are seeking a total of more than half a million dollars in costs from a 9-year-old child with autism.

The multi-national companies asked a Los Angeles judge to order the boy to pay alleged costs, after his case against them, over toxic heavy metals in their baby food, failed.

The Cantabrana family, on behalf of their young son Noah, brought the groundbreaking lawsuit against baby food makers, claiming that they knowingly had toxic heavy metals in their products.

7News first interviewed mom, Melissa, in 2022, who lovingly described her son as the family prepared to make the case in court that these toxins allegedly triggered Noah’s autism.

"My son, Noah, just turned eight. He is amazing,” said Cantabrana. “He is so cute. He’s got curly hair, and he is very silly.”

READ | Maryland lawmaker introduces bill to protect babies from toxic metals in food

That curly-haired little boy is now nine, and the target of multi-national companies seeking more than $600,000, after Noah’s case was dismissed.

“Just think about that for a second. It's a nine-year-old child with autism. This is frankly disgusting," said Noah’s attorney, Pedram Esfandiary.

Esfandiary represents Noah and other children, whose cases are moving forward, allegedly exposed to toxic heavy metals in baby food like lead, arsenic and mercury.

The defendants in Noah’s case were seven of the world's largest baby food makers: Walmart, Beech-Nut, Gerber, Hain Celestial "Earth's Best", Sprout Organics, Plum Organics and Nurture "Happy Family."

Every one of those companies, except Gerber, is going after Noah.

“It really bothers me when I go down the baby food aisles there's no label on there that says, ‘Hey, this has a really high level of lead, mercury, cadium, arsenic, come on, arsenic in baby food?'” said Cantabrana. “It just blows me away. They need to be held responsible for this.”

The companies trying to hold Noah responsible for costs stated in their court brief the request is reasonable and that “whether costs are properly assessed does not depend upon the identity of the plaintiff or the defendant, as plaintiff asserts. Plaintiff decided to initiate a lawsuit and, when he did not prevail, he became responsible for each category of recoverable costs as a matter of law.”

ALSO READ | Exclusive: Investigation uncovers even more kids sickened by lead in fruit pouches

Noah’s attorney is asking the judge to throw out the baby food makers' request stating, “Defendants—large, wealthy, multinational corporations—seek to burden a nine-year-old child suffering from neurodevelopmental disorders with $636,731.91 in litigation costs. Defendants’ gambit is not only unseemly, but contrary to law, fairness, and common sense.”

Esfandiary is hoping the public will step in.

“I urge everyone, contact these companies, put pressure on them to abandon this attempt to destroy a young man's life," said Esfandiary.

We contacted the companies asking the court to order Noah to pay the $600,000.

Beech-Nut stated:On September 1, 2023, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles’ case: NC (a minor Plaintiff) v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc.; Beech-Nut Nutrition Company; Nurture, Inc.; Plum, PBC, d.b.a. Plum Organics; Gerber Products Company; Walmart, Inc.; Sprout Foods, Inc.; Ralphs Grocery Company; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive Defendant.

The Court did so after excluding Plaintiff’s experts as unreliable. Plaintiff had claimed he developed autism and ADHD after eating defendants’ commercial baby food products but the Court rejected his claim for lack of proof.

This case was won on the merits. The Defendants had previously filed a Rule 998, which is a rule in California allowing for cost-shifting designed to deter baseless lawsuits. An award of costs pursuant to Rule 998 is intended to reimburse Defendants for a portion of the costs incurred in the event the Plaintiff does not prevail.

In this case, and as has been communicated to the lawyers for Plaintiffs, the Defendants anticipate enforcing the order against the Plaintiff’s law firm, and not the Plaintiff himself. According to its own website, the representing law firm promises that the Plaintiff pays nothing unless the Plaintiff wins. So all Defendants expect the Plaintiff’s firm to cover any costs taxed in the lawsuit.

Beech-Nut does not intend to pursue these costs against the Plaintiff or his family, as is well known to Plaintiff’s counsel. The Petition amount will need the judge's approval and the Plaintiff’s attorney has indicated that there will be no charges to the Plaintiff.

Nurture stated:As a team of parents, pediatricians, food scientists and nutritionists, it was shocking to see the falsely reported message that Nurture was demanding that a plaintiff child and his family were being asked to pay certain costs in connection with their California lawsuit that was dismissed last year.

It is important to clarify that Nurture is not seeking an award against NC or his family. Rather, we expect that any costs awarded by the Court will be borne by the Wisner Baum firm which ultimately made the decision to file and prosecute this case. Nurture stands by its decision to seek recovery of certain costs from the Wisner Baum law firm, which filed suit against Nurture despite the absence of any studies linking baby food consumption and autism and despite the lack of any evidence that NC ever consumed Nurture’s baby food products.

For additional background: after months of litigation, including extensive discovery, hearings, and motion practice, the California state court found that the evidence submitted by several of plaintiffs’ key experts was unreliable. Based on this ruling, the Court entered judgment in favor of Nurture and the other baby food manufacturer defendants. Under California law, a prevailing party is entitled to recover costs associated with defending against a legal claim. This rule is intended, at least in part, to discourage unsubstantiated claims, such as those at issue here.

Walmart stated: "We are committed to providing high-quality products and take food safety seriously. We have policies in place to comply with food safety controls, which ensures the food we provide is safe. The cost associated with the case is routine and there are rules in place to discourage future meritless lawsuits."

In 2021, a congressional hearing exposed dangerously high levels of toxic heavy metals in baby foods and failure on the part of the FDA to act.

The subcommittee's staff report found that these manufacturers, "knowingly sell baby food containing high levels of toxic heavy metals."

Multiple cases like Noah’s are moving currently forward in the court system. Wisner-Baum, the firm that represents Noah Cantabrana, told 7News they are pursuing litigation involving more than 35,000 families.