Day 025 - 16 Sep 94 - Page 56
1 court order for no more than acts and practices that
2 directly affected Texas.
3
4 In other words, a court in a different case might have
5 been, might well have been, able to adjoin McDonald's
6 nationally in class action, a law suit brought in a state
7 court in Texas. I believe that a state court would have
8 that authority. I believe it would be more properly
9 brought in a federal court for jurisdictional reasons, but
10 I believe a court could do it which is why I said "no" to
11 your first question. And another instance, if we had a
12 Texas based corporation, that is a different matter
13 entirely.
14
15 Q. I understand that.
16
17 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not think you are being asked.
18
19 MR. RAMPTON: I am not asking you about that.
20 A. No, but as to that, could we have obtained a court
21 judgment to do that, I think the answer is, no.
22
23 Q. I am grateful; that is what I thought. So the basis of
24 your demand in May 1986 -- I am coming to the question
25 whether it was a demand which had any effect or not in a
26 moment -- that McDonald's publish brochures nationwide in
27 its restaurants, the legal basis of it was somewhat
28 shakey, was it not?
29 A. The basis of our, not demand, but, as I have said
30 before, offer of settlement, was, as many offers of
31 settlement, designed to give up some rights that we did
32 not have and to gain some rights we might not gain in
33 court. By way of compromise parties often do that. That
34 is exactly what we sought. We sought to not require on
35 package labelling in exchange for distribution of these
36 products for broader than our two states at the time along
37 with these 10 or so other states in the background could
38 have required McDonald's had we gone to court, absolutely.
39
40 Q. Leaving aside for the moment, Mr. Gardner, the question
41 whether state legislation which exceeded or went beyond
42 federal legislation in relation to labelling would have
43 been ultra vires, leaving that on one side, was there in
44 Texas at this time detailed legislation in place?
45 A. Yes.
46
47 Q. There was. So this far we can go, can we, that it would
48 have been within the power of the Texas Attorney General
49 to bring court proceedings against McDonald's operators --
50 let us put it neutrally like that -- within the state of
51 Texas to comply with those labelling regulations?
52 A. Yes, with the co-operation of our Texas State
53 Department of Health which had the direct enforcement
54 authority and with which we worked on a regular basis.
55 The state of Texas would bring the law suit. The Attorney
56 General would not be the only decider; it would also have
57 to have been decided by the Commissioner of Health.
58
59 Q. The first notice that McDonald's that your office was
60 interested in this question, was on or after 6th May 1986,
