645 F. App'x 593
9th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Kane, Rosales, Booth) filed a putative class action alleging Chobani deceptively labeled yogurt as “natural” and used the term “evaporated cane juice” misleadingly for added sugar.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); the district court granted dismissal of the third amended complaint on February 20, 2014.
- Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit. The court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
- The Ninth Circuit found that the issues implicate technical and policy questions about food labeling appropriate for initial agency consideration (FDA) under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
- The FDA had initiated proceedings: a 2015 request for comments on the term “natural” and prior activity and promised guidance concerning “evaporated cane juice,” indicating active interest and imminent rulemaking/guidance.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded with instructions to stay the action pending the FDA’s resolution of the “natural” and “evaporated cane juice” labeling matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should decide labeling claims now or invoke primary jurisdiction | Labels are deceptive and violate law; court can adjudicate plaintiffs’ claims | Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (challenging pleadings) and resist judicial intervention | Vacated dismissal; instructed district court to stay under primary jurisdiction pending FDA action |
| Whether FDA activity warrants a stay | Plaintiffs argued court can proceed despite agency activity | Chobani argued agency expertise/reasonable pending guidance supports non-judicial resolution | FDA had active proceedings and expected guidance; court found primary jurisdiction appropriate |
| Whether staying the case would unduly delay or conserve resources | Plaintiffs likely concerned about delay harming relief | Chobani emphasized deference to agency; efficiency and uniformity benefits | Stay appropriate because it conserves judicial resources and won’t needlessly delay resolution given FDA’s imminent guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- Astiana v. Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing primary jurisdiction and when agency input is required for food-labeling disputes)
- Clark v. Time Warner Cable, 523 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining primary jurisdiction doctrine and agency expertise preference)