United States District Court, N.D. California
MARY SWEARINGEN and ROBERT FIGY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
SANTA CRUZ NATURAL INC, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
Now before the Court is a motion by defendant Santa Cruz Natural, Inc. ("Santa Cruz") to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended class action complaint. Docket No. 24, Motion to Dismiss. The motion is scheduled for a hearing on April 4, 2014. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and hereby VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion to dismiss and DISMISSES the action WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
This is a consumer class action. Defendant Santa Cruz is a beverage manufacturer which uses the term "organic evaporated cane juice" ("ECJ") on the label of its Lemonade Soda, Orange Mango Soda, Raspberry Lemonade Soda and Ginger Ale Soda, Lemon Organic Juice Box, Grape Organic Juice Box, Limeade, Lemon Lime Soda, Mango Lemonade Soda, Pomegranate Limeade Soda, Root Beer Soda, Sparkling Limeade, Sparkling Lemonade, Sparkling Tangerine, Cherry Lemonade, Peach Lemonade, Mango Lemonade, Raspberry Lemonade, Strawberry Lemonade and Original Lemonade ("class products"). Docket No. 23, First Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶ 3, Table 1. Plaintiffs allege that using the term ECJ violates Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulations which require food labels to reflect the common or usual name of an ingredient. FAC ¶¶ 16, 23, 44-49 (citing 21 C.F.R. §§ 101.4, 102.5). Plaintiffs allege that the common or usual name for ECJ is actually "sugar, " and that defendant uses the term ECJ instead of sugar to make its products appear healthier to consumers. FAC ¶¶ 16, 21, 23, 40, 44. Plaintiffs further allege that defendant's failure to comply with these FDA regulations violates California's Sherman Law ("Sherman Law"), California Health and Safety Code § 109875 et seq. Id. ¶¶ 8-10, 37-38, 61-65.
Based upon those alleged violations, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Santa Cruz on September 16, 2013. Docket No. 1, Compl. On December 30, 2013, plaintiffs filed the FAC, asserting causes of action under the following California consumer protection statutes: (1) the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") for unlawful business practices; (2) the UCL for unfair business practices; (3) the UCL for fraudulent business practices; (4) the False Advertising Law ("FAL") for misleading and deceptive advertising (5) the FAL for untrue advertising; and (6) the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") for unlawful sale of misbranded products and misrepresentations regarding those products. Docket No. 23, FAC. Plaintiffs also allege causes of action for: (7) breach of express warranty; (8) breach of implied warranty; (9) negligent misrepresentation; (10) negligence; (11) unjust enrichment; (12) recovery in assumpsit; and (13) declaratory relief. Id. By the present motion, defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs' FAC. Docket No. 24, Def.'s Mot.
Among other grounds, Santa Cruz moves to dismiss the FAC based upon the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Santa Cruz argues that, because food labeling is within the special competence of the FDA, and the FDA has not finalized it position on the term ECJ, the Court should apply the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, defer to the agency, and dismiss the action without prejudice. Docket No. 24, Motion to Dismiss at 20-22. In response, plaintiffs contend that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not apply in these circumstances because the FDA has "unwaveringly maintained since at least 2000 that the use of ECJ on food ingredient lists is illegal." Docket No. 28, Pls' Opp. at 20.
I. Legal Standard
"The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows courts to stay proceedings or to dismiss a complaint without prejudice pending the resolution of an issue within the special competence of an administrative agency." Clark v. Time Warner Cable, 523 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2008). "[T]he doctrine is a prudential' one, under which a court determines that an otherwise cognizable claim implicates technical and policy questions that should be addressed in the first instance by the agency with regulatory authority over the relevant industry rather than by the judicial branch." Id. Although no fixed formula exists for applying the doctrine, the Ninth Circuit has traditionally examined the following factors: "(1) [a] need to resolve an issue that (2) has been placed by Congress within the jurisdiction of an administrative body having regulatory authority (3) pursuant to a statute that subjects an industry or activity to a comprehensive regulatory authority that (4) requires expertise or uniformity in administration.'" Clark, 523 F.3d at 1115; see also Chabner v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1042, 1051 (9th Cir. 2000) (in determining whether to apply doctrine of primary jurisdiction, court should consider "1) whether application will enhance court decision-making and efficiency by allowing the court to take advantage of administrative expertise; and 2) whether application will help assure uniform application of regulatory laws.").
Primary jurisdiction may be invoked when an agency is addressing an issue through formal rulemaking procedures, as well as through adjudicative procedures. See, e.g., Clark, 523 F.3d at 1114-16; Kappelmann v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 539 F.2d 165, 169 (D.C. Cir. 1976). Several courts within this district have found application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine appropriate "where a determination of a plaintiff's claim would require a court to decide an issue committed to the FDA's expertise without a clear indication of how the FDA would view the issue." Hood v. Wholesoy & Co, Modesto Wholesoy Co. LLC, 12-CV-5550-YGR, 2013 WL 3553979, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2013); see also, e.g., Reese v. Odwalla, Inc., 13-CV-00947-YGR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40341, at *8 (N.D. Cal. March, 25, 2014); Ivie v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., C-12-02554-RMW, 2013 WL 685372, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2013); Astiana v. Hain Celestial, 905 F.Supp.2d 1013, 1016-17 (N.D. Cal. 2012); Gordon v. Church & Dwight Co., C 09-5585 PJH, 2010 WL 1341184, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2010).
Food labeling is within the special competence of the FDA. Morgan v. Wallaby Yogurt Co., Inc., 13-CV-00296-WHO, 2013 WL 5514563, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2013); Hood, 2013 WL 3553979, at *16. "The issue of proper declaration of ingredients on food labels is one as to which Congress vested the FDA with comprehensive regulatory authority." Reese, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40341, at *12 (citing 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq and 21 U.S.C. § 341 et seq ); accord Astiana, 905 F.Supp.2d at 1015 ("[I]ssues of beverage labeling have been entrusted by Congress to the FDA, pursuant to the FDCA (and its related regulations)....").
Specific to the present case, FDA regulations require that manufacturers list ingredients "on the label or labeling of a food... by [their] common or usual name." 21 C.F.R. § 101.4(a)(1). The regulations provide that the "common or usual name of a food may be established by common usage or by establishment of a regulation." 21 C.F.R. § 102.5(d). All of the claims in the FAC hinge on plaintiffs' contention that ECJ is not the common or usual name of the ingredient at issue, thereby rendering defendant's products in violation of the above federal regulations and illegal under California's Sherman Law. See generally FAC. Therefore, the issues raised by plaintiffs' complaint "fit squarely within" Congress' delegation of authority to the FDA. Clark, 523 F.3d at 1115.
The parties dispute whether the FDA has resolved the issue of whether ECJ is the common or usual name of the ingredient at issue. Plaintiffs argue that the FDA has consistently maintained since at least 2000 that the use of ECJ on food ingredient lists is false and misleading because ECJ is not the common or usual name for that ingredient. Docket No. 28, Pls' Opp. at 20; see also FAC ¶¶ 45-53. The Court disagrees. In support of their contention, plaintiffs rely on a 2009 draft guidance issued by the FDA and several warning letters. See id. In the 2009 draft guidance, the FDA states that it is advising the regulated industry that the FDA's view is that "evaporated cane juice" is not the common or usual name of any type of sweetener. Docket No. 25-1, Tansey Decl. Ex. A at 1-2. However, the 2009 draft guidance further states: "This guidance is being distributed for comment purposes only" and "Draft - Not for Implementation." Id. at 1. In addition, the guidance explains that it will ...