Federal judge dismisses lawsuit over Flamin' Hot Cheetos origin story
A federal judge this week dismissed a lawsuit filed by the man who says he invented Flamin' Hot Cheetos.
Richard Montañez had sued Frito-Lay and its parent company PepsiCo last year, alleging they defamed him and hurt his career by denying his role in creating the popular snack.
Federal Judge John W. Holcomb of the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles wrote in his Wednesday ruling that Montañez's accusations of fraud and defamation were insufficient or lacked 'factual support.'
But the battle over the origin story of the spicy junk food will remain in play for now.
Montañez will have the opportunity to amend his lawsuit because 'he may be able to cure the deficiencies in his pleading by alleging additional facts,' the judge wrote.
Montañez will have until June 13 to submit an amended complaint.
His lawsuit came in the aftermath of a 2021 Los Angeles Times investigation that questioned his rags-to-riches story that had long circulated the internet and captured the hearts of fans of the snack and immigrant communities.
The story goes that Montañez was working as a janitor at Frito-Lay's Rancho Cucamonga plant when he dreamed up a version of the Cheeto that would appeal to the Latino community and had the gumption to pitch his idea to an executive.
The Times article cited chronological inconsistencies in Montañez's story, archival proof of the release of test products and comments by Frito-Lay executives.
According to Montañez's lawsuit, he grew up in a Southern California migrant labor camp sharing an 800-square-foot, one-bedroom apartment with his parents and 10 siblings. He got the janitor job in the mid-1970s, and a decade later he and his wife experimented in their kitchen to create the new snack.
In his lawsuit, he explained that he met resistance working with the research and development team while creating a spicy seasoning for mass production.
'Dissatisfied that Mr. Montañez — a poor, uneducated Mexican plant worker and janitor — had successfully developed a new product, Frito-Lay's R&D personnel completely shut out Mr. Montañez from the development process,' the lawsuit said.
Montañez climbed PepsiCo's ranks, becoming the company's vice president of multicultural marketing and sales before retiring in 2019.
In his lawsuit, Montañez said that the companies had sent him touring the country delivering inspiring talks in elite academic and business settings, and that as a result PepsiCo had 'reaped tremendous benefits by affirmatively holding [Montañez] out as the inventor of Flamin' Hot Cheetos.'
But Holcomb, the judge, wrote that Montañez could not argue that PepsiCo and Frito-Lay's profiting off the premise that he invented the snack was unjust since Montañez 'mutually benefitted from Defendants' decades-long support.'
Montañez's attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Times staff writer Sandra McDonald contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Bus accident leaves 11 dead, 17 injured in Mexican state of Nuevo Leon
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - A bus accident in the northern Mexican state of Nuevo Leon left 11 people and 17 injured in the early hours of Tuesday, governor Samuel Garcia said on X.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
New Jersey mayor sues Trump ally Alina Habba over charges
The mayor of New Jersey's largest city is suing the Trump administration for 'malicious prosecution' after federal prosecutors dropped a criminal charge against him for allegedly trespassing at an immigrant detention facility. Attorneys for Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who is one of the six Democratic candidates running for governor, say interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba 'directed and ratified the unlawful arrest' of Baraka. Then, they say, Habba acted as a 'political operative,' defaming him in inflammatory statements on social media and in TV interviews. 'Habba was not serving in a prosecutorial function when she acted with DHS agents in the scheme to arrest Mayor Baraka,' according to the lawsuit, filed Tuesday morning in U.S. District Court in Newark. The suit seeks an unspecified amount of 'compensatory damages for pain, suffering, stress, humiliation' and other purported consequences of the episode, in addition to punitive damages. Baraka was arrested for allegedly trespassing last month at Delaney Hall, an immigrant detention facility owned by a private prison company and recently opened under the Trump administration. The charge was later dropped for what Habba said was the 'sake of moving forward.' Habba has also charged Rep. LaMonica McIver, a New Jersey Democrat who visited the facility to conduct oversight on that day, with federal felonies for allegedly assaulting two federal agents.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Judges in deportation cases face evasion and delay from Trump administration
All of this first came to the fore when Judge Paula Xinis opened an investigation in mid-April into whether Trump officials had violated her order to 'facilitate' the release of a Maryland man who had been wrongfully deported to a prison in El Salvador. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up In a sternly worded ruling in U.S. District Court in Maryland, Xinis instructed the Justice Department to tell her what steps the White House had taken, and planned to take, to free the man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, from Salvadoran custody. And she wanted answers quickly, declaring that her inquiry would take only two weeks. Advertisement That was seven weeks ago, and lawyers for Abrego Garcia say they are no closer now than they were then to understanding why their client was sent to El Salvador or what the government has done to fix what officials have acknowledged was an 'administrative error.' Instead, the lawyers say, the Justice Department has hidden what it knows about Abrego Garcia's deportation behind repeated claims of privilege. They have also said that the department has offered witnesses for depositions who have little firsthand knowledge of the case and has sought at every turn to slow-walk disclosing documents and responding to questions. Advertisement 'It is reflective of a pattern of deliberate delay and bad faith refusal to comply with court orders,' they wrote in a filing late last week. 'The patina of promises by government lawyers to do tomorrow that which they were already obligated to do yesterday has worn thin.' Such recalcitrance has left lawyers in the Justice Department who are working on these cases in a difficult position. Several times during hearings in the past few months, the lawyers have had to admit to federal judges that their 'clients' in agencies like the Department of Homeland Security have simply refused to provide the information they were asked for. After one of those lawyers, Erez Reuveni, admitted to Xinis during a hearing in April that he was frustrated by how he could not fully answer her questions, the Justice Department responded to his candor by suspending and then firing him. His dismissal prompted a spate of resignations from the department's Office of Immigration Litigation, which has effectively been hollowed out by the administration's give-no-ground approach. In many ways, the intransigent tactics used in these deportation cases echo those employed by the defense lawyers who represented Trump in the four criminal cases he faced before he was reelected. In those cases, only one of which survived to go to trial, the lawyers used every means at their disposal to gum up the works: They challenged minor matters, filed appeals at every turn and repeatedly asked judges for delays. Advertisement Two of those lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove III, now occupy top positions in the Justice Department. Last week, Trump said he would nominate Bove to be an appeals court judge. It remains unclear for now how Xinis intends to handle the department's stubbornness in Abrego Garcia's case, but the tensions could soon come to a head. Just last week, one day before it was supposed to submit its final answers to her questions, the administration asked for a two-week extension, saying that lawyers for the Justice Department had 'expended significant resources' going through the materials she requested. Responding to her demands, the lawyers wrote, had been 'extremely burdensome,' especially, they noted, because the department — the government equivalent of a giant white-shoe law firm — was hindered by 'limited staff available for document review.' Xinis denied the request on the same day it was made. She is not the only judge to have faced obstructions by the Trump administration. One day after Xinis began her investigation in Maryland, a federal judge in Washington, James E. Boasberg, threatened to open a similar inquiry into a violation of an order he had issued in a different deportation case. In that case, Boasberg said he was considering contempt proceedings to punish the administration for failing to comply with his instructions in March to stop planes of Venezuelan migrants from being sent to El Salvador. One week later, another federal judge in Maryland, Stephanie A. Gallagher, issued a ruling that echoed what Xinis had decided in the Abrego Garcia case. Gallagher told the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of a different immigrant — a young Venezuelan man known only as Cristian — who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador on the same set of flights as Abrego Garcia. Advertisement But in the days that followed, Gallagher confronted a familiar pattern of evasion and delay. First, the judge looked on as the Justice Department lost its bid to have a federal appeals court put her order on hold. Then, in the wake of that defeat, she ordered the administration to give her an update on the steps it had taken to seek Cristian's release. When the Justice Department filed its update last week (late, as it turned out), it was largely based on a declaration by a federal immigration official that included no new details about the case. The declaration merely repeated facts that everyone already knew: that Cristian was in the custody of El Salvador and that homeland security officials had asked the State Department for help in complying with the judge's initial order. Displeased by all of this, Gallagher fired off a new decision Wednesday, accusing the administration of having 'utterly disregarded' her order for an update. She gave Trump officials until 5 p.m. Monday to send another version. And just before that deadline, the Justice Department filed a new declaration from the same immigration official, asserting that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was 'personally handling discussions with the government of El Salvador' concerning Cristian. 'Secretary Rubio has read and understands this court's order,' the declaration said, 'and wants to assure this court that he is committed to making prompt and diligent efforts on behalf of the United States to comply with that order.' Advertisement But in a dueling submission to Gallagher, Cristian's lawyers said the Trump administration had yet to take any steps to bring their client back. The lawyers asked her to hold a hearing with testimony from 'key decision maker(s)' as to why and to punish officials, if needed, with a finding of contempt. Less than two weeks ago, a federal judge in Boston, Brian E. Murphy, said he might seek contempt sanctions against the administration after determining that Trump officials had violated one of his orders by putting a group of immigrants on a deportation flight to Africa with less than one day's notice. In April, Murphy expressly forbade such a move, issuing a ruling that barred officials from deporting people to countries not their own without first giving them a 'meaningful opportunity' to object. Murphy stopped short of following the path his colleagues took and ordering the government to 'facilitate' the return of the deported men. Instead, he took the advice of a Justice Department lawyer who suggested the administration could fix the problem it had created by providing the men with hearings in Africa at which they could challenge their removal. Not surprisingly, Murphy seemed a bit confused and more than a little outraged just days later when department lawyers asked him to reconsider this solution, claiming that he had imposed it on the White House and that it was more cumbersome than they had initially imagined. Murphy had to remind the lawyers that the whole proposal had been their idea, not his. 'Defendants have mischaracterized this court's order,' he wrote last week, 'while at the same time manufacturing the very chaos they decry.' This article originally appeared in . Advertisement
