United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division
GLEN AVILA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
REDWOOD HILL FARM AND CREAMERY, INC., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS [Re: Docket No. 32]
EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Defendant Redwood Hill Farm and Creamery's ("Defendant" or "RHFC") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). Plaintiff Glen Avila ("Plaintiff" or "Avila") filed this putative class action against Defendant alleging that Defendant's products have been improperly labeled so as to amount to misbranding and deception in violation of several California and federal laws.
Per Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), the motion was taken under submission without oral argument. Having fully reviewed the parties' papers, the Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for the reasons explained below.
Plaintiff is a California consumer who, since January 23, 2009, purchased four flavors of Defendant's Green Valley Organics yogurt product (strawberry, vanilla, blueberry, and peach flavors). Plaintiff argues that the yogurts' packaging is unlawful because it uses the term evaporated cane juice ("ECJ"). Dkt. No. 30 ¶¶ 4-6.
Plaintiff alleges that a label containing the term ECJ to describe sugar (1) is false' (e.g., states the product is a juice when it is not); and (2) violates a number of labeling regulations designed to ensure that manufacturers label their products with the common and usual names of the ingredients they use and accurately describe the ingredients they utilize. Id . ¶ 26. Plaintiff claims that he and the putative class members have been damaged by Defendant's alleged violations, in that they purchased misbranded and worthless products that were illegal to sell or possess. Plaintiff alleges one cause of action: violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
Plaintiff filed his original Complaint in this case on January 24, 2013 (Dkt. No. 1) and subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") on May 21, 2013 (Dkt. No. 14). Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 3, 2013 and Plaintiff filed the SAC on August 16, 2013 on behalf of himself and a putative class of all persons in the United States, or alternatively all persons in California, who have purchased the same products. Dkt. No. 30 ¶ 56. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 30, 2013. Dkt. No. 32.
II. 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." Ivie v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., No. C-12-02554-RMW , 2013 WL 685372, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2013) (quoting Clark v. Time Warner Cable , 523 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th Cir. 2008)). Courts consider the following factors in deciding whether the doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies: "(1) the 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." Ivie , 2013 WL 685372, at *5.
Where 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, courts of this district have found that dismissal or stay under the primary jurisdiction doctrine is appropriate. See Hood v. Wholesoy & Co., Modesto Wholesoy Co. LLC, No. 12-CV-5550-YGR , 2013 WL 3553979, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. July 12, 2013) (ECJ and soy yogurt claims dismissed because the FDA's position is unsettled); Astiana v. Hain Celestial , 905 F.Supp.2d 1013, 1016-17 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (holding that "[i]n absence of any FDA rules or regulations (or even informal policy statements)... the court declines to make any independent determination of whether [the label] was false or misleading" and the claims were barred under the primary jurisdiction doctrine).
In contrast, however, where FDA policy is clearly established with respect to what constitutes an unlawful or misleading label, the primary jurisdiction doctrine is inapplicable because there is little risk that the courts will undermine the FDA's expertise. See Brazil v. Dole Foods Co., Inc. , 935 F.Supp.2d 947, 959 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (where the FDA has established requirements applicable to the violations, there is no risk of undercutting the FDA's judgment and authority, thus a stay is not necessary).
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated state and federal labeling laws by using the term ECJ in labeling its food products because that is not the common or usual name of that ingredient and Plaintiff would not have bought the products if he knew they were illegal to sell and possess.
The operative statute in this matter is the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA"), 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., as amended by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 ("NLEA"), 21 U.S.C. § 343 et seq. 21 U.S.C. § 343 establishes the conditions under which food is considered "misbranded." Generally, food is misbranded under 21 U.S.C. § 343(a)(1) if "its labeling is false or misleading in any particular." 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 ...