235 F. Supp. 3d 226
D.D.C.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Organic Consumers Association, Moms Across America, Beyond Pesticides) sued General Mills in D.C. Superior Court under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act alleging Nature Valley granola products labeled “natural,” “healthy,” or “100% Natural” are misleading because they contain glyphosate (a pesticide).
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under the DCCPPA; complaint does not assert any federal claim.
- General Mills removed to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, arguing resolution of the DCCPPA claim necessarily raises substantial federal issues (FDA/EPA regulation of pesticide tolerances, food labeling, and definitions of “natural”/“healthy”).
- Plaintiffs moved to remand; defendant opposed, invoking Grable v. Darue as the basis for federal jurisdiction.
- The district court analyzed whether the state-law claim (1) necessarily raises a federal issue, (2) whether that issue is actually disputed and substantial, and (3) whether federal jurisdiction would disturb the federal-state balance. The court found removal improper and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists under Grable for a state-law DCCPPA claim challenging “natural/healthy” labeling when products contain glyphosate | DCCPPA claim is a state-law consumer-fraud dispute that does not necessarily raise federal issues; any federal regulations would be defenses | Plaintiffs’ claim necessarily implicates federal statutes/regulations concerning (1) pesticide safety/tolerances, (2) food-labeling requirements, and (3) federal policies/definitions for “natural” and “healthy,” so federal courts must resolve those issues | No federal-question jurisdiction under Grable; remand granted |
| Whether EPA pesticide tolerances convert the state claim into a federal issue | Plaintiffs do not need to show federal tolerance invalidity; “healthy” ≠ “safe,” and tolerance rules would be a defense only | Any claim that trace glyphosate is unsafe directly conflicts with EPA tolerance levels and thus raises a federal issue | Court: Tolerance/regulatory scheme might be invoked as a defense but are not necessarily raised; no Grable jurisdiction |
| Whether federal food-labeling rules create a necessary federal issue | DCCPPA claim focuses on misleading consumer impressions, not on violations of federal disclosure requirements | Federal labeling rules (which do not require disclosure of pesticide residues) are necessary to resolve plaintiffs’ omission-based allegations | Court: Federal labeling rules are relevant only as a defense; plaintiffs’ claim does not require applying those rules |
| Whether FDA policies on “healthy” and “natural” require federal resolution | Plaintiffs challenge consumer-facing uses of those terms under DCCPPA; not invoking FDA rulemaking or nutrient-content regulatory framework | FDA definitions/policies (and pending rulemaking) regulate or inform whether use of “healthy”/“natural” is permissible and therefore raise federal questions | Court: FDA rules/policies are either inapplicable or would be defenses; future or informal policies do not create Grable jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986) (federal-question removal is rare when plaintiff pleads only state-law claims; federal defense insufficient)
- Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003) (federal statutes that wholly displace a state cause of action can support federal jurisdiction)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005) (state claim may arise under federal law only if it necessarily raises a substantial, disputed federal issue suitable for federal adjudication)
- Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013) (reaffirming and clarifying Grable’s four-part test for federal jurisdiction over state-law claims)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (a federal defense, including preemption, does not establish federal-question jurisdiction)
- Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677 (2006) (Grable category is a special and small one; federal jurisdiction is limited)
- Smith v. Kansas City Title & Tr. Co., 255 U.S. 180 (1921) (classic example where a state-law claim depended on the meaning of a federal statute)