30 F. Supp. 3d 917
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Hendricks sues StarKist for alleged underfilling of four 5-ounce StarKist tuna products and seeks class relief nationwide and in California.
- Plaintiff asserts express/implied warranties, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and CLRA/UCL/FAL claims based on FDA standard of fill.
- StarKist moved to dismiss on preemption, primary jurisdiction, pleading deficiencies, standing, and unjust enrichment as a standalone claim.
- Complaint relies on FDA/FDCA standards for fill (21 C.F.R. § 161.190) to argue cans are not ‘adequate’ and thus misbranded or deceptive.
- Court analyzes whether FDCA preemption applies, whether primary jurisdiction applies, and whether state-law claims may proceed in light of federal regulations.
- Order: grant in part and deny in part; unjust enrichment claim dismissed; other claims survive to be amended or litigated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCA preemption applies to the claims? | Hendricks argues state claims parallel FDA standards and are not preempted. | StarKist asserts FDCA preempts claims seeking different standards. | Not preempted; state claims parallel FDA standards. |
| Should the case be stayed or dismissed under primary jurisdiction? | FDA may later decide to change standards; court should defer. | Regulation is clear; no need to defer. | No stay or deferral; no primary jurisdiction basis to delay. |
| Standing to assert claims for products not purchased by Plaintiff? | Common misrepresentations affect all products; class claims permissible. | Claims for three unpurchased products lack standing. | Denied; sufficient similarity supports standing for non-purchased products. |
| Unjust enrichment claim viability separate from other relief? | Restitution should be available for unjust enrichment. | Restitution duplicative of UCL/CLRA remedies; not standalone. | Granted; unjust enrichment claim dismissed as duplicative. |
| Fraud-based claims under Rule 9 pleading requirements? | Plaintiff pleaded misrepresentation and reliance regarding adequate tuna. | Pleading insufficient to establish fraud elements. | Denied; fraud pleadings sufficient to survive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (narrow preemption scope; drug labeling not exclusively preempted)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996) (parallel state remedies when duties align with federal standards)
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 343 (2001) (fraud-on-the-FDA claims preempted; private remedies may exist for parallel state duties)
- Stengel v. Medtronic, Inc., 704 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2013) (FDA labeling claims not preempted when based on parallel state duties)
- Perez v. Nestle USA, Inc., 711 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) (narrow gap theory for non-preemption of parallel state claims)
- Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co., 752 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (express preemption where labeling compliant with FDA regulations)
- In re Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 42 Cal.4th 1077 (Cal. 2008) (California allows state remedies paralleling FDA labeling; private actions permitted)
- Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 552 U.S. 312 (2008) (state claims parallel to federal duties may proceed)