Turek v. General Mills, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20959
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Diversity class action alleging violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFDCPA) and Illinois UDTPA against General Mills and Kellogg; district court dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction based on preemption; plaintiff did not seek class certification and the suit proceeded only as to named plaintiff; questions arose whether the dismissal terminated the suit or whether class issues could substitute another named plaintiff; plaintiffChallenges centered on labeling claims concerning Fiber Plus bars containing inulin from chicory root; federal labeling regulations under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLCEA) preempt state requirements that are not identical to federal labeling requirements; court considered whether NLCEA preempts state-law disclosures and whether the claim falls within complete preemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NLCEA preempts the state-labeling claim. | Turek argues state labeling requirements are preempted by NLCEA. | Defendants contend labeling compliance is governed by federal rules, precluding state-law claims. | Not preempted; state claim must be identical to federal requirements to survive. |
| Whether this case is properly subject to complete preemption. | Plaintiff contends complete preemption applies due to federal occupation of the field. | Complete preemption does not apply; NLCEA does not occupy the entire field here. | Inapplicable; NLCEA does not create federal-question jurisdiction through complete preemption. |
| Whether the claim should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) with prejudice. | Not explicitly argued in detail in the excerpt, but appeals on merits. | Dismissal on the merits with prejudice is appropriate when preemption does not permit state-law claims. | Yes; dismissal with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) affirmed. |
| Whether the Illinois CFDA claim fails due to federal authorization of the labeling claims. | CFDA claim survives as it arises from consumer protection laws. | CFDA claim is foreclosed because federal labeling governs the disclosures. | CFDA claim fails because representations are authorized by federal statute/regulations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehmann v. Brown, 230 F.3d 916 (7th Cir.2000) (complete preemption concept clarified; federal occupation of field)
- Beneficial Nat. Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2003) (complete preemption and federal jurisdiction principles)
- Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, 390 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1968) (preemption considerations and federal authority)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1996) (FDA regulation scope and private right of action limits)
- Kemp v. Medtronic, Inc., 231 F.3d 216 (6th Cir.2000) (preemption and federal labeling regimes)
- City of New York v. FCC, 486 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1988) (identicality standard for state disclosures to federal requirements)