Plaintiff April McElroy (“McElroy” or “Plaintiff”) was injured while attempting to open a bottle Mumm Napa Valley Brut Rose, a sparkling wine. The bottle broke causing lacerations to her left hand. McElroy has filed claims for her injuries against Defendants Pernod Ricard USA, Inc. (“Pernod”), Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits LLC, (“Glazer”) and Garfield Beach CVS LLC (“CVS”).
McElroy’s negligence claim alleged that the Defendants failed to adhere to industry standards and best practices for storage and retention of the product to ensure the safety and integrity of the product. Consequently, she asserted that the Defendants violated their duty of care to consumers by improperly storing and distributing a product in a manner that proximately caused Plaintiff’s injury.
Plaintiff offered the opinion of her expert Jim Goldman regarding how non-vintage sparkling wines should properly be stored and distributed at the wholesale and retail levels. Both Pernod and CVS moved to exclude the testimony of Goldman.
Packaging Expert Witness
Jim Goldman is a certified packaging expert with a consistent history of achievement developing packaging, supply chain, and production equipment for the Food and Beverage industry.
Discussion by the Court
To begin with, Goldman cited no authority, regulation, actual industry guidelines or any evidence of any manufacturers, wholesalers or retailers adopting or adhering to his proposed “industry standards.”
He asserted for safety reasons the following steps are required in the distribution of non-vintage sparkling wines: 1) at all times the bottles are to be stored horizontally, 2) the bottles are to be stored in environments of controlled temperature and humidity, 3) the age of such products requires monitoring, and 4) that any non-vintage sparkling wine product has a maximum shelf life of 6 months after which it should be destroyed. Failure to adhere to this “standard” he opined is negligence and a cause of Plaintiff’s injury.
However, there is no evidence whatsoever that his proposed guidelines are a standard by which the industry operates. A jury could not reasonably conclude that failure to meet one or more of Goldman’s self-created storage steps violated a duty of care.
Also, Goldman did opine that his proffered “industry standard” for wholesale and retail storage of non-vintage wines is supported by a website operated by G.H. Mumm (not a Defendant is this case) advising consumers of their vintage champagnes (not the product in this case) the best way to store vintage champagne for quality.
However, the Court held that this reference did not support his opinion that there is an industry wide standard for the shipment, storage and distribution of non-vintage sparkling wines that Defendants violated.
Held
The Court granted the the motions to exclude the testimony of Jim Goldman.
Key Takeaway
Goldman has not demonstrated a duty of care that any Defendant violated in the storage or retention of the wine at issue, and his testimony is wholly insufficient to create a material factual dispute.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | McElroy V. Pernod Ricard USA, LLC |
| Docket Number: | 3:23cv2183 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court, California Southern |
| Order Date: | January 29, 2026 |
Leave a Reply