— opinion —
One of the most important and often most controversial questions in food safety litigation is not whether the product was contaminated or whether anyone was harmed. The first question is whether the court has the power to hold the correct defendant accountable. This question, always important, has now taken on new urgency in light of a salmonella outbreak linked to green dietary supplements that has sickened at least 119 people in 36 states. As litigation progresses, the Southern District of New York’s 2023 decision — Albright v. Daily Harvest, Inc.No. 22cv5987, 2023 US Dist. LEXIS 151783 (SDNY Aug. 25, 2023) — has emerged as an important and directly relevant precedent for how courts approach supply chain liability in food safety cases.
Background: Daily Harvest Outbreak
Food Safety News readers may remember the 2022 Daily Harvest outbreak. Daily Harvest, a subscription-based health food company with its principal operations in New York, sold a product called French Lentil + Leek Crumbles that has been linked to serious liver damage (elevated liver enzymes, jaundice, and in some cases, surgical intervention) in consumers. The culprit ingredient was tara powder, produced by a Peruvian company called Molinos Asociados SAC.
The supply chain is tiered. Molinos sold tara powder to a U.S.-based distributor, who supplied it to a Minnesota contract manufacturer, who incorporated it into Daily Harvest’s finished products. When the plaintiffs filed the suit in the Southern District of New York (the logical forum where Daily Harvest’s New York headquarters are located), Molinos moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The company claimed to be a Peruvian company that had never had a presence in New York, maintained no offices or facilities there, and had no direct contractual relationship with the New York corporation.
District Judge Denise Cote denied the application in August 2023. Our firm, Marler Clark, successfully opposed the motion on behalf of the majority of the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit. Judge Cote’s opinion deserves careful study.
What the court found
Judge Cote’s analysis focused on New York’s long-standing law, CPLR § 302(a)(1), which allows New York courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-residents who “transact business within the state or contract anywhere for the supply of goods or services within the state.” This statute is a “single act” statute. One transaction with sufficient New York connections may be sufficient, even if the defendant never actually entered New York.
The crucial fact was this. Molinos purchase orders from U.S. distributors explicitly required that tara powder match Daily Harvest’s specifications. This means that Molinos understands exactly who the product requirements are that apply to manufacturing. The logistics document identified the New York-based company as a participant in the import chain. Molinos copied Daily Harvest staff in an email correspondence about delivery delays. And Molinos’ own internal presentation reflected its formal acceptance of Daily Harvest’s specifications with its supply chain management platform identifying Daily Harvest as a New York company.
In evaluating the totality of that evidence, Judge Cote concluded that Molinos “knowingly collaborated with Smirk’s and Daily Harvest in selling tara powder for use in the manufacture of products to be sold by Daily Harvest, a New York company.” Intentional commercial engagement formed and directed by a New York corporation was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. Motion denied.
Why Decisions Matter
that daily harvest The issue of adjudication arises for reasons that go far beyond the Tara Flour lawsuit.
First, it firmly establishes that personal jurisdiction under CPLR § 302(a)(1) does not require physical presence in New York. A foreign or out-of-state supplier, knowing that it was manufacturing in accordance with the specifications of a New York company and forming its commercial activities accordingly, knowingly availed itself of its privilege to carry on business in connection with New York, even though the products in question did not cross state lines while in the supplier’s possession. What matters is not the geographical location of the production facility, but the commercial relationships and the knowledge they reflect.
Second, this decision provides substantive substance to the “nexus” requirement of § 302(a)(1). According to the New York Court of Appeals’ controlling formula: Licci v. Lebanese Canadian BankThe plaintiff’s claim must only be “related to” the defendant’s New York State-led business activities and not “entirely separate” from those activities. daily harvest Apply this standard in the context of a multi-party supply chain and ensure that contamination claims arising from ingredients supplied to a New York company’s products meet the nexus requirements, even when there are multiple commercial intermediaries between the supplier and the forum.
Third, the decision signals that the court will review the entire commercial relationship of suppliers and New York companies. A supplier who understands and acts pursuant to the understanding that he or she is providing services to a New York company cannot disclaim that relationship for jurisdictional purposes in the event of harm.
Ongoing Moringa Expansion: The Harder Facts
that daily harvest This decision applies directly to lawsuits resulting from the salmonella outbreak, which, as of the most recent FDA update on June 12, has increased significantly since it first came to public attention in January. There is ongoing litigation related to this outbreak and we will not identify any specific parties, clients or confidential case information. But public records – and they are substantial – tell an important story.
As of May 27, 119 people were infected and 32 were hospitalized in 36 states. The survey began in January 2026, closed briefly, and reopened after 22 new diseases emerged. This suggests that contaminated products have been in circulation for longer than initially understood. A traceback investigation confirmed that Moringa leaf powder contaminated with Salmonella Typhimurium and Salmonella Newport was the cause, leading to multiple recalls of two additional Moringa capsule product lines linked to the same manufacturer as the Green Style supplement.
The jurisdictional position in this case is similar to: daily harvest In important ways, and in some ways it makes a stronger case. in daily harvestThe connection of upstream suppliers to the New York Forum was through a chain of intermediaries. That is, a Colorado distributor and a Minnesota manufacturer stood between a Peruvian flour producer and a New York brand owner. The supplier’s knowledge of the New York connection was established through logistics documentation, email copying, and records of compliance with specifications.
At least some of the relationships at issue in moringa supplement lawsuits are direct. This means that the New York address is listed in the written contract between the contract manufacturer and the New York brand owner. Product samples are sent to New York. commercial communications targeting New York; Purchase orders issued from a New York address and invoices sent to a New York billing address. where daily harvest While jurisdiction is established on the basis of an indirect intermediary relationship, the present litigation involves a direct contractual relationship of a kind that makes a purposeful availability analysis much simpler.
The broader lesson: supply chain length is not a defense
Civil litigation is one of the most powerful mechanisms for holding supply chains accountable, but only if the responsible parties actually appear in court. This will not happen if the upstream supplier is able to obtain a jurisdictional release before a single document is created.
daily harvest At the very least, if the upstream supplier has a deliberate and documented commercial relationship with a New York entity, it becomes more difficult to obtain a dismissal. This represents the proposition that the length of the supply chain is not itself a defense to jurisdiction. A supplier that provides services to a New York company, meets that company’s specifications, works with a New York-based logistics partner, and directs commercial communications to New York-based employees has transacted business in New York within the meaning required by § 302(a)(1). The fact that other commercial actors stand between the supplier and the final consumer does not change the analysis.
final observation
The moringa outbreak is far from over. As of April 2026, 32 people were hospitalized, and new cases of the disease are still being reported more than a year after the first case. Sick people are not interested in legal abstractions about minimal contact and intentional use. They are trying to hold accountable those responsible for putting contaminated products into their hands. daily harvest This is important because it ensures that the mechanism remains available. The jurisdiction does not provide a shield protecting upstream suppliers from liability.
The supply chain is not a shield. The courts appear to be taking this principle seriously.
