Christina Webb v. Trader Joe's Company, 999 F.3d 1196

Plaintiff Christina Webb bought Trader Joe’s chicken products labeled “Up to 5% retained water,” had them independently tested, and alleges the products averaged ~9% retained water.
Webb sued under California consumer-protection and warranty laws, claiming the labels were misleading and products economically adulterated.
The Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) and FSIS regulations require poultry producers to maintain a written retained-water data‑collection protocol, make it available to FSIS for review, and allow FSIS to object or require changes.
Labels that include “special statements” (e.g., “no antibiotics ever”) must be submitted for FSIS review; FSIS affixes an inspection legend to approved labels. Trader Joe’s labels contained such special statements.
The district court dismissed Webb’s complaint with prejudice, finding her state-law claims preempted by the PPIA because imposing Webb’s testing standard would add or differ from federal requirements; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Webb’s state-law claims are preempted by the PPIA (§ 467e)	Webb: Her suit enforces state law and is not seeking to impose federal requirements because Trader Joe’s retained-water basis was not preapproved	Trader Joe’s: Allowing Webb’s protocol to govern would impose additional/different requirements than the federal scheme	Preempted: Webb’s claims would impose requirements in addition to/different from the PPIA and are barred
Whether FSIS review/approval covered Trader Joe’s retained-water protocol/labels	Webb: Retained-water claim was generic and therefore not preapproved, so state enforcement is allowed	Trader Joe’s: Labels included special statements triggering FSIS review of the full label; FSIS reviewed protocol and did not object	Held: FSIS reviewed/validated the labels/protocol; that federal approval preempts Webb’s challenge
Whether dismissal with prejudice (no leave to amend) was proper	Webb: A narrow gap exists—she enforces state law rather than the PPIA—so amendment might cure preemption concerns	Trader Joe’s: Webb cannot allege she used the same FSIS‑reviewed protocol and cannot plausibly amend without discovery fishing	Held: Dismissal with prejudice affirmed; amendment would be futile absent allegation that Webb used Trader Joe’s protocol

Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Harris, 565 U.S. 452 (preemption clause can bar conflicting state requirements)
Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519 (state requirements differing from federal rules are preempted)
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (express preemption can bar common-law duties)
Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Tr., 136 S. Ct. 1938 (interpretation of express preemption clauses)
Marentette v. Abbott Lab’ys, Inc., 886 F.3d 112 (preemption of labeling/ certification-based claims)
Perez v. Nidek Co., 711 F.3d 1109 (distinguishing enforcement of federal law from independent state-law claims)
Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057 (limitations on discovery to prevent fishing expeditions)
McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d 802 (standard of review for Rule 12(c) judgment on the pleadings)
United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047 (treatment of Rule 12(c) like Rule 12(b)(6))
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (consideration of the complaint and incorporated documents on pleadings challenge)
Eminence Cap., LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (standard for dismissal with prejudice and leave to amend)