Supreme Court of California Justia
Citation 42 Cal. 4th 1077, 175 P.3d 1170, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 112

Farm Raised Salmon Cases


Filed 2/11/08

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

FARM RAISED SALMON CASES.
S147171
Ct.App. 2/3 B182901
Los Angeles County

Super.
Ct. No. JCCP 4329
Plaintiffs filed a class and representative action alleging that various
grocery stores violated state law by selling artificially colored farmed salmon
without disclosing to their customers the use of color additives.1 Defendants
successfully demurred in the trial court, arguing the action was preempted by
section 337(a) of title 21 of the United States Code, a provision of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) (21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.).2 The Court of
Appeal affirmed the resulting judgment of dismissal.
We granted review to decide whether plaintiffs’ action was preempted by
the FDCA. We conclude that section 337(a) does not preempt the action as

1
The grocery stores include Albertson’s, Inc., Safeway, Inc., The Kroger
Company, Trader Joe’s, Costco Wholesale Corp., Whole Foods Market, Inc.,
Bristol Farms, Inc., Ocean Beauty Seafoods, Inc., and various subsidiary stores
owned and operated by these stores (collectively, defendants).
2
All further unlabeled statutory references are to title 21 of the United States
Code.
1



plaintiffs do not seek to “enforce[ ], or to restrain violations” of, the FDCA.
(§ 337(a).) Rather, plaintiffs’ claims for deceptive marketing of food products are
predicated on state laws establishing independent state disclosure requirements
“identical to” the disclosure requirements imposed by the FDCA, something
Congress explicitly approved in section 343-1. (§ 343-1(a)(3).) Accordingly, we
reverse the Court of Appeal’s judgment and remand the matter to that court for
further proceedings consistent with our opinion.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Facts and Procedural History
Various individuals initiated separate actions against defendants alleging
the grocery stores sold artificially colored farmed salmon without disclosing to
consumers the use of color additives.3 The separate actions were coordinated in
Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4329.
In March 2004, plaintiffs filed a coordinated complaint alleging as a class
and representative action that fish farmers feed farm-raised salmon the chemicals
astaxanthin and canthaxanthin to obtain a color of flesh resembling that of wild
salmon.4 Plaintiffs allege the flesh of farm-raised salmon appears grayish without

3
The factual and procedural history is largely taken from the Court of
Appeal’s opinion.
4
While astaxanthin and canthaxanthin can occur naturally, the color
additives used for feeding farmed salmon are manufactured from petrochemicals.
(See Burros, Issues of Purity and Pollution Leave Farmed Salmon Looking Less
Rosy,
N.Y. Times (May 28, 2003) p. F1.) Salmon farmers can manipulate the
flesh color of their product by increasing or decreasing the amount of chemical
dye. Indeed, one of the dye manufacturers “offers salmon farmers the SalmoFan,
a sort of paint wheel with assorted shades of pink, to help them create the color
they think their customers want.” (Ibid.)
2



the chemical additives and that consumers believe the color of salmon is an
indication of its origin, quality, freshness, flavor, and other characteristics.
Plaintiffs allege that concerns have been raised about the potential health risks of
consuming the artificial coloring agents in particular and farm-raised salmon in
general. They further allege that parallel federal and state laws require food
labeling to state that farmed salmon is artificially colored and defendants failed to
comply with those requirements. Plaintiffs also allege the failure to disclose the
use of artificial coloring has caused consumers to believe farmed salmon is wild
salmon.
The complaint asserts four state law causes of action: (1) violation of the
unfair competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.); (2) unfair or
deceptive trade practices under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ.
Code, § 1750 et seq.); (3) violation of the false advertising law (Bus. & Prof.
Code, § 17500 et seq.); and (4) negligent misrepresentation. The laws alleged to
be violated as a predicate for the “unlawful” prong of plaintiffs’ UCL claim (id., §
17200) include provisions of the state Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law
(Health & Saf. Code, § 109875 et seq.) (Sherman Law).5
Defendants jointly demurred on several grounds, including that
(1) section 337(a) 6 preempts plaintiffs’ state law claims; (2) further consideration

5
There is no dispute that, under California law, private parties may assert
UCL claims based on violations of the Sherman Law. (Committee on Children’s
Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp.
(1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 210-211
(Children’s Television).)
6
Section 337(a) provides: “Except as provided in subsection (b), all such
proceedings for the enforcement, or to restrain violations, of [the FDCA] shall be
by and in the name of the United States.” Subsection (b) allows states to initiate
(Footnote continued on next page.)
3



of the complaint could conflict with regulation and enforcement by the United
States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or California’s Department of Health
Services (DHS), so the action should be dismissed under the primary jurisdiction
doctrine; and (3) plaintiffs failed to allege affirmative representation as required in
order to state a cause of action under several provisions of the CLRA. Defendants
also moved to strike portions of the complaint.
The trial court sustained the demurrer as to each count, with leave to
amend. The court held that section 337(a) preempts plaintiffs’ state law claims,
that the dispute should be referred to the FDA or the DHS under the primary
jurisdiction doctrine, and that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the
CLRA because they failed to allege the necessary affirmative representation.
Plaintiffs elected not to amend their complaint and instead challenged on appeal
the sustaining of the demurrer.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s finding of preemption,
holding that section 337(a) precludes private enforcement of the FDCA, that
plaintiffs’ state law claims are predicated on a violation of the FDCA, and,
therefore, that section 337(a) impliedly preempts plaintiffs’ state law claims.7 In

(Footnote continued from previous page.)

proceedings in their own name in federal court to enforce, or restrain violations of,
certain provisions of the FDCA after first giving 30 days’ notice to the federal
government and allowing the federal government to decide whether it wants to
commence an enforcement action.
7
The state Attorney General filed an amicus curiae brief addressing
defendants’ section 337 argument. The brief also directed the Court of Appeal’s
attention to section 343-1(a)(3) and argued that the statute expressly permits states
to enact laws identical to federal requirements governing the labeling of artificially
(Footnote continued on next page.)
4



light of its holding, the Court of Appeal did not reach or discuss the other grounds
asserted by defendants in support of their demurrer. We granted plaintiffs’
petition for review.
B. Relevant Federal and State Laws
1. The FDCA Requires Disclosure of the Use of Color Additives
The FDCA prohibits the misbranding of any food. (§ 331(b).) A food
“shall be deemed to be misbranded” under the FDCA if “its labeling is false or
misleading in any particular . . . .” (§ 343(a).) More important to this case, a food
is also deemed misbranded if “[i]t bears or contains any . . . artificial coloring . . .
unless it bears labeling stating that fact . . . .” (§ 343(k).)
FDA regulations permit the use of the chemical substances astaxanthin and
canthaxanthin in “the feed of salmonid fish” as color additives “to enhance the
pink to orange-red color of the flesh of salmonid fish.” (21 C.F.R. §§ 73.35(c)
[astaxanthin], 73.75(c)(3) [canthaxanthin] (2007).) If used, however, the
chemicals’ presence must be declared as prescribed by the FDA (id., §§
73.35(d)(3), 73.75(d)(4)). Use of a color additive must be declared through the
use of the phrases “ ‘Artificial Color,’ ‘Artificial Color Added,’ or ‘Color Added’
(or by an equally informative term that makes clear that a color additive has been
used in the food).” (Id., § 101.22(k)(2) (2007).) Alternatively, disclosing the
actual color additive used satisfies FDA regulations. (Ibid.) The disclosure that a

(Footnote continued from previous page.)

colored food. While the court’s opinion acknowledged and addressed the
Attorney General’s section 337 arguments, it did not address the section 343-1
argument.
5



color additive has been used “shall be placed on the food or on its container or
wrapper, or on any two or all three of these, as may be necessary to render such
statement likely to be read by the ordinary person under customary conditions of
purchase and use of such food.” (Id., § 101.22(c).)
2. The FDCA Permits States to Establish Identical Requirements
Congress amended the FDCA with the Nutrition Labeling and Education
Act of 1990 (NLEA). (Pub.L. No. 101-535 (Nov. 8, 1990) 104 Stat. 2353.) The
purpose of the NLEA was to create uniform national standards regarding the
labeling of food and to prevent states from adopting inconsistent requirements
with respect to the labeling of nutrients. (Remarks of Rep. Waxman, 136 Cong.
Rec. 5840 (daily ed. July 30, 1990) [debate on H.R. No. 3562, 101st Cong., 2d
Sess.].) To that end, the NLEA included an explicit preemption provision in the
form of section 343-1(a) (Pub.L. No. 101-535, § 6 (Nov. 8, 1990) 104 Stat. 2362-
2364), which provides that “no State or political subdivision of a State may
directly or indirectly establish under any authority or continue in effect as to any
food in interstate commerce— [¶] . . . [¶] (3) any requirement for the labeling of
food of the type required by section . . . 343(k) of this title that is not identical to
the requirement of such section . . . .” (§ 343-1(a), italics added.)8

8
FDA regulations make clear that the phrase “not identical to” in section
343-1(a)(3) “does not refer to the specific words in the requirement.” (21 C.F.R.
§ 100.1(c)(4) (2007).) “[I]f the state requirement does the same thing that the
Federal law does, even if the words are not exactly the same, then it is effectively
the same requirement as the Federal requirement. . . . [s]uch a State or local
requirement is consistent with the Federal requirement.” (60 Fed.Reg. 57120
(Nov. 13, 1995).)
6



Although section 343-1 speaks in terms of what states may not do, by
negative implication, section 343-1 also expresses what states may do, i.e., states
may establish their own requirements pertaining to the labeling of artificially
colored food so long as their requirements are identical to those contained in the
FDCA in section 343(k). (60 Fed.Reg. 57120 (Nov. 13, 1995) [under FDA
regulations, “if the State requirement is identical to Federal law, there is no issue
of preemption”]; Consumer Justice Center v. Olympian Labs, Inc. (2002) 99
Cal.App.4th 1056, 1065 (Consumer Justice) [“[s]tates can enforce labeling rules
which are identical” (original italics)]; cf. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr (1996) 518 U.S.
470, 495 (Medtronic) [reaching same conclusion regarding similar FDCA
preemption provision in section 360k].)
3. The Sherman Law Imposes Requirements “Identical to” Those
Contained in Section 343(k)
Like the FDCA, the Sherman Law broadly prohibits the misbranding of
food. (Health & Saf. Code, § 110765.) Among various examples of what
constitutes misbranded food (e.g., id., § 110660 et seq.), the Sherman Law uses
language “identical to” section 343(k) to provide that food is misbranded “if it
bears or contains any . . . artificial coloring . . . unless its labeling states that fact.”
(Health & Saf. Code, § 110740.) The Sherman Law provides that disclosing the
addition of “color” will suffice (id., § 110725, subd. (a)) and requires that any
disclosure be “prominently placed . . . and in terms as to render it likely to be read
and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase
and use.” (Id., § 110705.)
Additionally, the Sherman Law incorporates “[a]ll food labeling regulations
and any amendments to those regulations adopted pursuant to the [FDCA]” as “the
food labeling regulations of this state.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 110100, subd. (a).)
7

Thus, California has adopted as its own the FDA regulations regarding the use of
(and disclosure of the use of) astaxanthin and canthaxanthin in the feeding of
farmed salmon (see 21 C.F.R. §§ 73.35, 73.75 (2007)).
4. Section 337 Specifies Who Has Standing to Enforce the FDCA
Originally enacted in 1938, section 337 is a standing provision, providing
that “all such proceedings for the enforcement, or to restrain violations, of [the
FDCA] shall be by and in the name of the United States . . . .”9 (Act of June 25,
1938, ch. 675, § 307, 52 Stat. 1046, italics added.) Section 337 precludes private
enforcement of the FDCA (§ 337(a); Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm.
(2001) 531 U.S. 341, 349, fn. 4, 352 (Buckman)) and limits the circumstances
under which states may seek to enforce the FDCA in federal court (§ 337(b)).
Whether or not section 337 also precludes private claims predicated on state law is
the crux of the present litigation and will be discussed at greater length below.
C. Principles of Preemption
As we have previously explained, “[t]he basic rules of preemption are not
in dispute: Under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution (art. VI,
cl. 2), Congress has the power to preempt state law concerning matters that lie
within the authority of Congress. [Citation.] In determining whether federal law
preempts state law, a court’s task is to discern congressional intent. [Citation.]
Congress’s express intent in this regard will be found when Congress explicitly
states that it is preempting state authority. [Citation.] Congress’s implied intent to

9
The NLEA relabeled the original section 337 as section 337(a) (Pub.L. No.
101-535, § 4 (Nov. 8, 1990) 104 Stat. 2362) and added subsection (b). (§ 337(b);
see ante, pp. 3-4, fn. 6.)
8



preempt is found (i) when it is clear that Congress intended, by comprehensive
legislation, to occupy the entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the states
to supplement federal law [citation]; (ii) when compliance with both federal and
state regulations is an impossibility [citation]; or (iii) when state law ‘stands as an
obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives
of Congress.’ [Citations.]” (Bronco Wine Co. v. Jolly (2004) 33 Cal.4th 943, 955
(Bronco Wine); Viva! International Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional
Retail Operations, Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 929, 935-936 (Viva! International).) It
is well established that the party who asserts that a state law is preempted bears the
burden of so demonstrating. (Viva! International, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 936;
Bronco Wine, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 956.)
The interpretation of the federal law at issue here is further informed by a
strong presumption against preemption. (See Medtronic, supra, 518 U.S. at
p. 485; see also Viva! International, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 938; Bronco Wine,
supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 974.) “[B]ecause the States are independent sovereigns in
our federal system, we have long presumed that Congress does not cavalierly pre-
empt state law causes of action. In all pre-emption cases, and particularly in those
in which Congress has ‘legislated . . . in a field which the States have traditionally
occupied,’ [citation] we ‘start with the assumption that the historic police powers
of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear
and manifest purpose of Congress.’ [Citations.]” (Medtronic, supra, 518 U.S. at
p. 485; Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (2005) 544 U.S. 431, 449 (Bates); Big
Creek Lumber Co. v. County of Santa Cruz (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1139, 1150, fn. 7.)
We apply this presumption to the existence as well as the scope of preemption.
(Medtronic, supra, 518 U.S. at p. 485.)
9

There can be no doubt that the presumption applies with particular force
here. (See Bronco Wine, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 974.) As the Court of Appeal
acknowledged here, “[c]onsumer protection laws such as the [UCL], false
advertising law, and CLRA, are within the states’ historic police powers and
therefore are subject to the presumption against preemption.” Laws regulating the
proper marketing of food, including the prevention of deceptive sales practices,
are likewise within states’ historic police powers. (Florida Avocado Growers v.
Paul (1963) 373 U.S. 132, 144; Bronco Wine, supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 959-961
[describing history of state regulation].) Indeed, as early as the 1860’s, California
was enacting laws regulating food marketing. (See, e.g., Stats. 1862, ch. 365,
pp. 484-485 [prohibiting sale of adulterated and misbranded food]; Bronco Wine,
supra, 33 Cal.4th at pp. 961-963.)
It is with these principles in mind that we consider whether it was the
“ ‘clear and manifest purpose’ ” of Congress (Medtronic, supra, 518 U.S. at p.
485) to preclude states from providing private remedies for the violations of the
state statutes at issue here.
II. DISCUSSION
We begin by noting the type of preemption defendants assert here.10 As
the Court of Appeal concluded, it is clear that Congress has not expressly
preempted private claims predicated on state laws imposing requirements identical
to those contained in the FDCA (see §§ 337, 343-1), and defendants do not claim

10
We apply a de novo standard of review because this case was resolved on
demurrer (McCall v. PacifiCare of Cal., Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 412, 415) and
because federal preemption presents a pure question of law (Spielholz v. Superior
Court
(2001) 86 Cal.App. 4th 1366, 1371).
10



otherwise. Neither do defendants contend that plaintiffs’ action is impliedly
preempted as a result of Congress occupying the field. Nor do defendants argue
the action is preempted because compliance with both state and federal laws is
impossible — as state and federal laws impose identical requirements regarding
the disclosure of the use of artificial coloring, compliance with one necessarily
ensures compliance with the other. (Compare, e.g., § 343(k) with Health & Saf.
Code, § 110740.) Instead, defendants assert plaintiffs’ claims are impliedly
preempted because they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution
of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.
The Court of Appeal concluded that plaintiffs’ action was indeed impliedly
preempted, basing its holding solely on its reading and application of section
337(a). While the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the statute’s plain language
limits its scope to efforts that seek to enforce the FDCA itself, it nonetheless
concluded that section 337(a) also operates to preempt plaintiffs’ purely state law
claims. The Court of Appeal reasoned that, because section 337(a) explicitly bars
the private enforcement of FDCA provisions (Buckman, supra, 531 U.S. at
pp. 349, fn. 4, 352), section 337(a) must therefore also impliedly bar private
claims predicated on state provisions imposing requirements identical to those
contained in the FDCA. However plausible the Court of Appeal’s reasoning may
appear when section 337(a) is considered in isolation, its reasoning is seriously
undermined when section 343-1 is taken into account.11 Accordingly, we begin
with a discussion of that statute.

11
Defendants ask this court to ignore section 343-1 when considering
Congress’s intent, contending plaintiffs have not properly raised the statute and
(Footnote continued on next page.)
11



A. Section 343-1 Permits States to Adopt Identical Requirements
The words of section 343-1 clearly and unmistakably evince Congress’s
intent to authorize states to establish laws that are “identical to” federal law.
(§ 343-1; Consumer Justice, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1065.) That is precisely
what California did in enacting the Sherman Law. The Sherman Law provision

(Footnote continued from previous page.)

implying the Court of Appeal was not given an opportunity to consider the issue.
We disagree and decline defendants’ invitation to disregard section 343-1.
As previously mentioned (ante, p. 4, fn. 7), the Attorney General filed an
amicus curiae brief in the lower court in which it discussed the impact of section
343-1 at length. Defendants filed an answer fully responding to the argument.
After the Court of Appeal issued its opinion without discussing the statute, the
Attorney General filed a letter in support of plaintiffs’ petition for review in which
it again addressed the provision. Defendants addressed the argument in their
response letter. In neither their answer to the amicus curiae brief nor their
response to the Attorney General’s letter did defendants assert that section 343-1
had not been properly raised. Plaintiffs then discussed section 343-1 in their
opening brief in this court and defendants fully briefed the issue while
simultaneously arguing plaintiffs should not be allowed to raise it. Accordingly,
all the parties have had a reasonable opportunity to brief this issue and we may
properly consider it. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.516(b)(2).)
Additionally, while plaintiffs’ petition for review did not explicitly cite
section 343-1, it did broadly raise the issue of “whether the FDCA preempts
parallel state law requirements.” Because our central task in preemption analysis
is to discern Congress’s intent (Bronco Wine, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 955), it is
appropriate to discuss a pertinent FDCA provision shedding light on that intent.
Moreover, the impact of section 343-1 presents a purely legal issue and
does not require the further development of a factual record. We have previously
allowed parties to “ ‘advance new theories on appeal when the issue posed is
purely a question of law based on undisputed facts, and involves important
questions of public policy.’ ” (Cedars- Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court
(1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 6.)
12



prohibiting misbranding with regard to the use of color additives (Health & Saf.
Code, § 110740) is identical to section 343(k), the parallel federal requirement
specifically listed in section 343-1 as one of the federal statutes covered by the
express preemption provision. Additionally, the Sherman Law incorporates all of
the food labeling regulations promulgated by the FDA (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 110100, subd. (a)), including those having to do with the use of astaxanthin and
canthaxanthin in the feeding of farmed salmon (21 C.F.R. §§ 73.35, 73.75 (2007)).
Accordingly, the state requirements at issue here are explicitly permitted by
section 343-1. (See Consumer Justice, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1065 [“[s]tates
can enforce labeling rules which are identical” (original italics)].)
While Congress clearly stated its intent to allow states to establish their
own identical laws, it said absolutely nothing about proscribing the range of
available remedies states might choose to provide for the violation of those laws,
such as private actions. Nor is there anything in the legislative history suggesting
that any proponent of the legislation intended a sweeping preemption of private
actions predicated on requirements contained in state laws. Defendants cite
portions of the legislative history for that proposition, but the cited excerpts
actually bolster our conclusion. For example, defendants point to the remarks of
Representative Henry Waxman, who originally introduced the NLEA in the House
of Representatives: “[The NLEA] recognizes the importance of the State role: by
allowing States to adopt standards that are identical to the Federal standard, which
may be enforced in State court; by allowing the States to enforce the Federal
standard in Federal court.” (Remarks of Rep. Waxman, 136 Cong. Rec. 1539
(daily ed. July 30, 1990), italics added.)
13

Far from establishing that Congress intended to preclude private claims
based on state laws, Representative Waxman’s remarks suggest the opposite. By
explicitly stating that the NLEA would allow states to enforce the federal
requirements in federal court, but not discussing who would be allowed to enforce
the identical state requirements, the remarks suggest that Congress did not intend
to alter the status quo, i.e., states may choose to permit their residents to file unfair
competition or other claims based on the violation of state laws (see, e.g.,
Children’s Television, supra, 35 Cal.3d at pp. 210-211). 12 If Congress intended
to permit states to enact identical laws on the one hand, but preclude states from
providing private remedies for violations of those laws on the other hand, “its
failure even to hint at it is spectacularly odd.” (Medtronic, supra, 518 U.S. at p.
491 (plur. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Congressional silence on this point is all the more
strange in light of Congress’s presumed awareness that “virtually every state in the
nation permits one or more nongovernmental parties to enforce state . . . laws of
general applicability prohibiting deceptive or unfair acts and practices in the
marketplace.” (Annot., Right to Private Action Under State Consumer Protection
Act—Preconditions to Action (2004) 117 A.L.R.5th 155.)13

12
Indeed, the NLEA was enacted in 1990 primarily to establish a national
uniform labeling standard in place of the patchwork of different state standards
that existed at the time. Under defendants’ interpretation of the FDCA, private
claims based on those pre-NLEA state labeling laws would have been permitted
(since they were presumably different from the FDCA), but Congress’s adoption
of a uniform standard in the form of the NLEA had the effect of eliminating
private causes of action based on state labeling laws. It is hard to believe that
Congress would have intended such a result without saying so.
13
For example, we held in Children’s Television, supra, 35 Cal.3d at pages
210 to 211, that, in California, “any unlawful business practice, including
(Footnote continued on next page.)
14



Further undermining defendants’ interpretation is the fact that Congress
made clear that the preemptive scope of section 343-1 was to sweep no further
than the plain language of the statute itself. In NLEA section 6(c)(1) (an
uncodified provision), Congress provided that “[t]he [NLEA] shall not be
construed to preempt any provision of State law, unless such provision is
expressly preempted under [section 343-1] of the [FDCA].” (Pub.L. No. 101-535,
§ 6(c)(1) (Nov. 8, 1990), 104 Stat. 2364.) Thus, Congress’s decision not to
expressly supplant private claims based on those state laws authorized by section
343-1 should be interpreted as its considered decision to continue to allow states to
provide such private remedies.
The language of this uncodified provision is significant for two additional
reasons. First, it evidences an intent to allow state and federal regulation to co-
exist. “Where Congress establishes a regime of dual state-federal regulation,
‘conflict-pre-emption analysis must be applied sensitively . . . so as to prevent the
diminution of the role Congress reserved to the States while at the same time
preserving the federal role.’ [Citations.]”14 (Viva! International, supra, 41

(Footnote continued from previous page.)

violations of the Sherman law, may be redressed by a [UCL] private action.”
(Italics added.)
14
Indeed, during debate on the NLEA, Congress recognized the important
role states’ laws have in consumer protection. “The States have played an
invaluable role by enforcing State food labeling and advertising laws at a time
when consumers have been bombarded with health claims.” (H.R.Rep. No. 101-
980, 2d Sess., p. 19 (Nov. 14, 1990); see remarks of Rep. Waxman, 136 Cong.
Rec. 5840 (daily ed. July 30, 1990).)
15



Cal.4th at p. 942.) Defendants’ interpretation would substantially interfere with
state legal remedies, “producing a serious intrusion into state sovereignty while
simultaneously wiping out the possibility of remedy for the [plaintiffs’] alleged
injuries.” (Medtronic, supra, 518 U.S. at pp. 488-489 (plur. opn. of Stevens, J.).)
Second, the provision’s language is significant because it informs our
analysis of the existence of any implied preemption. “[A]n express definition of
the pre-emptive reach of a statute ‘implies’ — i.e., supports a reasonable inference
— that Congress did not intend to pre-empt other matters . . . .” (Freightliner
Corp. v. Myrick (1995) 514 U.S. 280, 288.) While an express clause does not
foreclose an inquiry into implied conflict preemption in all cases (Geier v.
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2000) 529 U.S. 861, 869), deference should be
paid to Congress’s detailed attempt to clearly define the scope of preemption
under the FDCA. (See Viva! International, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 945
[“Congress has expressly identified the scope of the state law it intends to
preempt; hence, we infer Congress intended to preempt no more than that absent
sound contrary evidence.”].)
Various provisions of the FDCA clearly demonstrate that “Congress knows
how to write a preemption clause” when it wants to (Consumer Justice, supra, 99
Cal.App.4th at p. 1059) and that “the [FDCA] evidences, far from implied
preemption, an instance of implied nonpreemption.” (Id. at p. 1063.) Congress
enacted numerous specific express preemption provisions in the FDCA. (See,
e.g., §§ 360k (medical devices), 360ss (radiation emissions), 379r (nonprescription
drugs), 379s (cosmetics).) The inference to be drawn from these provisions is that
Congress, in light of the history of dual state-federal cooperation in this area, did
not intend to limit states’ options in a broad fashion. Indeed, the preemption
16

provision at issue here, section 343-1, demonstrates Congress’s care in deciding
what to preempt and what to allow. Section 343-1 is notable both for the number
of misbranding provisions it deals with (approximately 20) and for the detailed
nature of its preemptive scope.15 The language of section 343-1 and the NLEA’s
express preemption provision is further evidence that Congress chose carefully the
manner with which it preempted certain state labeling laws. Defendants have not
provided sufficient evidence to contradict the inference that Congress intended a
narrow interpretation of the scope of preemption.
In support of their argument that, notwithstanding section 343-1, plaintiffs’
action is preempted by section 337, defendants point to NLEA section 6(c)(3) (an
uncodified provision) (Pub.L. No. 101-535, § 6(c)(3) (Nov. 8, 1990), 104 Stat.
2364). That provision states that section 343-1 “shall not be construed to affect
preemption, express or implied, of any such requirement of a State or political
subdivision, which may arise under the Constitution, any provision of the [FDCA]
not amended by section [343-1], or . . . any Federal regulation, order, or other final
agency action . . . .” (Pub.L. No. 101-535, § 6(c)(3) (Nov. 8, 1990), 104 Stat.
2364, italics added.)
This provision is inapplicable to this case for two reasons. First, the phrase
“any such requirement” in NLEA section 6(c)(3) refers to the “requirement”
discussed in NLEA section 6(c)(2) (Pub.L. No. 101-535, § 6(c)(2) (Nov. 8, 1990),
104 Stat. 2364). In NLEA section 6(c)(2), Congress provided that section 343-1
does not apply “to any requirement respecting a statement in the labeling of food

15
The statute, for example, does not apply to requirements governing maple
syrup. (Gold, Legal Strategies to Address the Misrepresentation of Vermont
Maple Syrup
(2004) 59 Food & Drug L.J. 93, 103 & fn. 78.)
17



that provides for a warning concerning the safety of the food . . . .” (Pub.L. No.
101-535, § 6(c)(2) (Nov. 8, 1990), 104 Stat. 2364.) Thus, read in context, it is
clear that the phrase “any such requirement” in NLEA section 6(c)(3) refers to the
food safety labeling requirement discussed in the immediately preceding
provision, NLEA section 6(c)(2). Second, it is undisputed that section 337 bars
private enforcement of the FDCA — no one contends section 343-1 alters that
conclusion. However, plaintiffs do not seek to enforce the FDCA. Their action is
based on the violation of state law — albeit state law that is, in compliance with
section 343-1, identical to FDCA provisions. Concluding that section 343-1
permits private claims based on state law does not affect section 337’s preemption
of efforts to enforce the FDCA.
In
Medtronic, supra, 518 U.S. 470, and Bates, supra, 544 U.S. 431, the
high court considered the impact on assertions of federal preemption of provisions
similar to section 343-1. In both cases the defendants claimed private suits to
enforce state laws identical to federal laws were preempted by federal law. And,
in both cases, the high court disagreed.
In
Medtronic, supra, 518 U.S. 470, the plaintiffs filed a private state law
negligence action against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective pacemaker.
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ action was preempted by the FDCA, as
amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) (Pub.L. No. 94-295
(May 28, 1976) 90 Stat. 539). (Medtronic, supra, 518 U.S. at p. 474.) The high
court, relying on a preemption provision contained in the MDA (§ 360k),
disagreed and held that the action was not preempted.
Like section 343-1, section 360k provides, “no State or political
subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device
18

intended for human use any requirement — [¶] (1) which is different from, or in
addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter to the device . . . .”
(§ 360k(a); see Medtronic, supra, 518 U.S. at pp. 481-482.) Interpreting this
provision, the high court concluded that Congress did not intend to preempt “state
rules that merely duplicate some or all of [the] federal requirements.” (Medtronic,
supra, at p. 492.) The high court further reasoned that because Congress
authorized states to adopt identical requirements, states were also free to provide
for private remedies for violations of those requirements. “[I]t is clear that the
[plaintiffs’] allegations may include claims that Medtronic has, to the extent that
they exist, violated FDA regulations. At least these claims, [the plaintiffs]
suggest, can be maintained without being pre-empted by § 360k, and we agree.
[¶] Nothing in § 360k denies [a state] the right to provide a traditional damages
remedy for violations of common-law duties when those duties parallel federal
requirements.” (Medtronic, supra, 518 U.S. at p. 495.)
In
Bates, supra, 544 U.S. 431, the high court considered whether plaintiffs’
private state law action was preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq.). The plaintiffs there were Texas
peanut farmers who alleged that their crops had been severely damaged by the
application of the defendant’s pesticide, which had been conditionally registered
by the Environmental Protection Agency. (Bates, supra, 544 U.S. at p. 435.) The
defendant argued FIFRA preempted the plaintiffs’ action. (Ibid.)
Like the provision at issue in Medtronic, FIFRA contains a preemption
provision similar to section 343-1, which provides that states “shall not impose or
continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or
different from those required under this subchapter” (7 U.S.C. § 136v(b); see
19

Bates, supra, 544 U.S. at p. 436). The Bates court held that “[t]he imposition of
state sanctions for violating state rules that merely duplicate federal requirements
is equally consistent with the text of [7 U.S.C.] § 136v.” (Bates, supra, 544 U.S.
at p. 442.) Additionally, although FIFRA did not provide a federal remedy to the
farmers, the high court concluded that “nothing in [7 U.S.C.] § 136v(b) precludes
States from providing such a remedy.” (Bates, supra, 544 U.S. at p. 448.)
Accordingly, in light of the plain statutory language of section 343-1, and
the high court’s construction of similar preemption language, we conclude that
Congress intended to allow states to establish their own requirements so long as
they are identical to those contained in section 343(k), which California has done
in the form of the Sherman Law. We further conclude that nothing in the text of
section 343-1 or its legislative history supports the assertion that Congress
intended to limit the scope of remedies states might choose to provide for the
violations of those state laws. We therefore turn to a consideration of whether,
notwithstanding section 343-1, section 337 provides a basis for the implied
preemption of plaintiffs’ claims.
B. Section 337 Does Not Impliedly Preempt Plaintiffs’ State Claims

To briefly recap, section 337 is the FDCA standing provision. Section
337(a) provides that, except as set forth in section 337(b), “all . . . proceedings for
the enforcement, or to restrain violations, of [the FDCA] shall be by and in the
name of the United States.” Section 337(b) allows states to initiate proceedings in
their own name in federal court to enforce, or restrain violations of, certain
provisions of the FDCA. However, before so doing, a state must give 30 days’
notice to the federal government. (§ 337(b).) The federal government may then
20



decide whether it wants to commence an enforcement action in court and, if it
does, the state is precluded from acting to enforce the FDCA. (Ibid.)
The crux of defendants’ preemption argument is that plaintiffs’ private state
claims are precluded because they improperly seek to enforce the FDCA in
violation of section 337(a). Defendants’ starting assumption is incorrect.
Plaintiffs do not seek to enforce the FDCA; rather, their deceptive marketing
claims are predicated on violations of obligations imposed by the Sherman Law,
something that state law undisputedly allows (Children’s Television, supra, 35
Cal.3d at pp. 210-211; cf. Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (1998)
17 Cal.4th 553, 562-563). That the Sherman Law imposes obligations identical to
those imposed by the FDCA, as it must under section 343-1, does not
substantively transform plaintiffs’ action into one seeking to enforce federal law.
Rather, it merely reflects Congress’s considered judgment that states should
uniformly regulate food labeling using identical standards. Indeed, while the high
court in Medtronic did not expressly consider the impact of section 337 on the
private state action at issue there, it held that those plaintiffs’ private actions were
permitted because they were identical to the FDCA. (Medtronic, supra, 518 U.S.
at p. 495.) It is difficult to believe the high court would have so held if section
337 expressed a “clear and manifest” intent (Medtronic, at p. 485) to preclude
private actions based on state laws explicitly authorized by the FDCA in section
343-1.
Section 337 does not apply to the state law claims presented here. The
statute, by its very terms, only implicates efforts to enforce federal law. What
section 337 does not do is limit, prohibit, or affect private claims predicated on
state laws. (See Consumer Justice, supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1067, fn. 17 [“The
21

underlying assumption [in the defendants’ briefing] is that this lawsuit is somehow
an attempt to use state unfair competition laws to enforce federal laws. No, the
lawsuit is about state unfair advertising laws.”].)16 The FDA has opined that
because “[section 337] applies only to proceedings to enforce the [FDCA]” (58
Fed.Reg. 2458 (Jan. 6, 1993)), “[n]othing in [section 337] would preclude a State
from taking action against a particular food under its own State law . . . .”17 (58
Fed.Reg. 2458, italics added.) Nor does section 337 affect the ability of states to
provide a private remedy for violations of their laws if they so choose.18 One
treatise has noted that “[p]laintiffs may sue under state unfair trade practice laws
for omissions that would fit under either FDA or state trade laws. [Fn. omitted.]”

16
Defendants claim Consumer Justice is distinguishable. They reason that
section 337 was not implicated in that case because the plaintiffs’ false advertising
claims there did not raise an issue “committed to the FDA,” and could not “be
properly characterized as an attempt to circumvent the [FDCA’s] express
prohibition on private causes of action . . . ” (Consumer Justice, supra, 99
Cal.App.4th at p. 1064). However, the same is true of plaintiffs’ state law claims
here. Rather than raising issues “committed to the FDA,” plaintiffs’ claims arise
under laws that section 343-1 explicitly authorizes states to enact.
17
We note that, as the FDA is the federal agency that Congress has authorized
to implement and enforce the FDCA (§ 371), the FDA is “uniquely qualified to
determine whether a particular form of state law . . . should be pre-empted.”
(Medtronic, supra, 518 U.S. at p. 496; see Thompson v. Western States Medical
Center
(2002) 535 U.S. 357, 362.)
18
In their briefs, the parties discuss an unpublished federal district court
opinion which came to the same conclusion when considering nearly identical
facts. (Vermont Pure Holdings, Ltd. v. Nestle Waters North America, Inc.
(D.Mass., Mar. 28, 2006, No. Civ. A. 03-11465) 2006 WL 839486, *6, fn. 3.)
Citing unpublished federal opinions does not violate our rules. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.1115.) We find the court’s reasoning persuasive.
22



(2 O’Reilly, Food and Drug Administration (3d ed. 2007) § 26:32, p. 26-43; see
Children’s Television, supra, 35 Cal.3d at pp. 210-211.)
No court, particularly after passage of the NLEA, has ever held that states
may not provide a private remedy for the violation of state laws imposing
requirements identical to those imposed by federal law. The cases defendants cite
are inapposite, all dealing with efforts to use state laws to directly enforce the
FDCA itself. For example, defendants cite Summit Tech., Inc. v. High-Line
Medical Instruments, Co. (C.D.Cal. 1996) 933 F.Supp. 918. However, in that
case, the district court allowed the plaintiff’s UCL claim to proceed,
acknowledging that “under [the UCL], Plaintiff may redress violations of the
California Sherman Act . . . .” (Summit Tech., supra, 933 F.Supp. at p. 943.)
Defendants rely heavily on a footnote in the decision stating, “This is true unless
federal law preempts such an action. Thus, a Plaintiff may not bring a [UCL]
claim that is, in fact, an attempt to state a claim under the FDCA.” (Summit Tech.,
supra, 933 F.Supp. at p. 943, fn. 21.) However, as previously explained,
plaintiffs’ claims arise out of violations of the Sherman Law, not out of the FDCA
itself.
The other cases cited by defendants are similarly unavailing. They
invariably deal with a party seeking to enforce (sometimes through the use of state
law) the FDCA. The cases are also notable for what they do not address — none
involve state laws explicitly authorized by section 343-1 or a similar statute. For
example, in Pediamed Pharms., Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. (D.Md. 2006)
419 F.Supp.2d 715, a pharmaceutical company sued its competitor over the
marketing and sale of drugs. The defendant company asserted a state-law unclean
hands defense, arguing that the plaintiff’s drugs were being marketed in violation
23

of the FDCA. The district court rejected the defense, reasoning that, “[b]ecause
[the defense] requires direct application of the FDCA, which only the FDA is
entitled to enforce, these arguments are precluded.” (Pediamed Pharms., Inc. v.
Breckenridge Pharm., Inc., supra, 419 F.Supp.2d at p. 727.)
Defendants
cite
Fraker v. KFC Corp. (S.D.Cal., Apr. 30, 2007, No. 06-CV-
01284) 2007 WL 1296571 in their supplemental brief, arguing it is a recent
example of a court reaching this issue. However, as with the previous cases,
Fraker is inapplicable. The plaintiff in Fraker brought state law claims against
KFC Corporation (formerly Kentucky Fried Chicken) alleging that the defendant
misrepresented its product as healthy when it was in fact high in “trans” fat
content. (Id., at p. *1.) In dismissing the plaintiff’s claims as preempted, the
district court noted that the complaint alleged defendant violated the FDCA,
misbranded its food in violation of federal regulations, and made actionable health
claims in violation of federal regulations. (Fraker v. KFC Corp., supra, 2007 WL
1296571 at p. *3.) Accordingly, the court concluded that the state law claims
were impermissibly founded on violations of the FDCA and were thus preempted
by section 337. (Fraker v. KFC Corp., supra, 2007 WL 1296571 at pp. *3-4.)
All of these cases rejected claims or defenses because they were based on
violations of the FDCA itself.19 The district courts reasoned that directly applying
the FDCA, as would have been required, would run afoul of section 337. By

19
At oral argument, defendants’ counsel cited Bailey v. Johnson (6th Cir.
1995) 48 F.3d 965. However, for the same reasons as discussed above, Bailey is
unlike the case presented here. The plaintiffs in Bailey argued that “the FDCA
created a private, federal right of action.” (Bailey v. Johnson, supra, 48 F.3d at
p. 966.) Plaintiffs here make no such claim.
24



contrast, plaintiffs’ claims in this case do not require referring to, or applying, the
FDCA. Plaintiffs’ claims are based on violation of the Sherman Law and can be
resolved with reference to state law alone. Additionally, none of these cited cases
considered the impact of section 343-1. Given that section 343-1 explicitly
authorizes the enactment of identical state labeling laws, that provision is an
important distinction between the cases defendants cite and the one presented here.
In short, defendants have not identified any case law to support their argument that
Congress clearly and manifestly intended to impliedly preempt with section 337
what it explicitly authorized with section 343-1.
We note also that, as in Medtronic, the implication of defendants’
“sweeping interpretation” would interfere greatly with state legal remedies,
“producing a serious intrusion into state sovereignty . . . .” (Medtronic, supra, 518
U.S. at p. 488 (plur. opn. of Stevens, J.).) Defendants argue that the identical
requirements contained in the Sherman Law may only be enforced by the state
itself, and may not be the basis of private claims. However, if section 337(a)’s
explicit preclusion of private enforcement of the FDCA impliedly preempts
private claims based on identical state laws, as defendants argue, then it
necessarily follows that section 337(b)’s explicit conditions on state enforcement
of the FDCA in federal court must also impliedly limit states’ enforcement of their
own laws in state court. It cannot be the case that states must give the federal
government 30 days notice before seeking to enforce their own laws in state court
(as section 337(b) requires when states seek to enforce the FDCA in federal court)
and defendants do not argue otherwise.
Defendants assert that allowing private claims based on identical laws in
state court would render section 337 meaningless because states would be required
25

to give the FDA notice before initiating actions but private parties would not. This
argument misunderstands the scope of section 337 and conflates efforts to enforce
federal law with efforts based on state law. As previously discussed, section 337
is only concerned with enforcement of federal law, i.e., the FDCA. If a state
brings an action to enforce the FDCA in federal court, it must first notify the FDA
under section 337(b). On the other hand, defendants concede that states may
enforce their own laws in state court without notifying the FDA at all, even though
the laws impose requirements identical to those contained in the FDCA.
Defendants identify no persuasive rationale to explain why private claims based
on these same state laws would be of any greater concern to Congress than
California’s enforcement of state laws — in both instances, state laws identical to
the FDCA are enforced without first notifying the FDA.
In conclusion, while allowing private remedies based on violations of state
laws identical to the FDCA may arguably result in actions that the FDA itself
might not have pursued, Congress appears to have made a conscious choice not to
preclude such actions. Defendants’ assertion that Congress intended, without so
saying, to limit states’ long-standing ability to allow private remedies for
violations of their own laws has no support in either statutory language, legislative
history, or case law — and therefore defendants have not overcome the strong
presumption against preemption applicable here, as is their burden (Medtronic,
supra, 518 U.S. at p. 485; Viva! International, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 936). We
accordingly hold that section 337 does not impliedly preempt private actions based
on violations of state laws explicitly authorized by section 343-1.
26

III. DISPOSITION
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the matter is
remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MORENO, J.

WE CONCUR: KENNARD, ACTING C. J.
BAXTER,
J.
WERDEGAR,
J.
CHIN,
J.
CORRIGAN,
J.
MIHARA,
J.∗


Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, assigned by
the Acting Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.
27



See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.

Name of Opinion Farm Raised Salmon Cases
__________________________________________________________________________________

Unpublished Opinion


Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted
XXX 142 Cal.App.4th 805
Rehearing Granted
__________________________________________________________________________________

Opinion No.

S147171
Date Filed: February 11, 2008
__________________________________________________________________________________

Court:

Superior
County: Los Angeles
Judge: Anthony J. Mohr
__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Appellant:

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Craig R. Spiegel, Lee M. Gordon, Elaine T. Byszewski and Steve W.
Berman for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Albert Norman Shelden, Assistant Attorney
General, and Ronald A. Reiter, Deputy Attorney General, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and
Appellants.

Kevin S. Golden for The Center for Food Safety as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Kamala D. Harris, District Attorney (San Francisco), June D. Cravett, Assistant District Attorney; Gary
Liberstein, District Attorney (Napa), Daryl Roberts, Deputy District Attorney; Stephan R. Passalacqua,
District Attorney (Sonoma), Matthew T. Cheever, Deputy District Attorney; Thomas J. Orloff (Alameda),
Lawrence C. Blazer, Assistant District Attorney; Dolores A. Carr, District Attorney (Santa Clara), Robin
B. Wakshull, Deputy District Attorney; Edward S. Berberian, District Attorney (Marin), Robert E. Nichols,
Deputy District Attorney; James P. Fox, District Attorney (San Mateo), John E. Wilson, Deputy District
Attorney; Gregory D. Totten, District Attorney (Ventura), Gregory W. Brose, Deputy District Attorney;
Dean D. Flippo, District Attorney (Monterey), Steven Hollett, Deputy District Attorney; David W.
Paulson, District Attorney (Solano), Criselda B. Gonzalez, Deputy District Attorney; Bonnie M. Dumanis,
District Attorney (San Diego), Patricia Pummill, Deputy District Attorney; Bob Lee, District Attorney
(Santa Cruz), William Atkinson, Deputy District Attorney; Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney (Los
Angeles) and Don Kass, Assistant City Attorney, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Respondent:

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Rex S. Heinke, David C. Allen, Johanna R. Shargel; Streeter &
Nangano, Thomas Barclay, Michael Nangano, Michael L. Coates; Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman,
Machtinger & Kinsella, Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger, Norman Howard Levine; Ervin,
Cohen & Jessup, Allan B. Cooper, Tamara L. Dewar; O’Melveny & Myers, Carla J. Christofferson;
Seyfarth Shaw, Jay W. Connolly and Geoff S. Long for Defendants and Respondents.
1



Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):

Craig R. Spiegel
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 623-7292

Rex S. Heinke
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
(310) 229-1000

2


Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action. This case presents the following issue: Does the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. section 301 et seq.) impliedly preempt plaintiffs' state law claims against defendants for deceptive marketing of food products by failing to disclose that farmed salmon sold in their stores contains artificial coloring?

Opinion Information
Date:Citation:Docket Number:Category:Status:
Mon, 02/11/200842 Cal. 4th 1077, 175 P.3d 1170, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 112S147171Review - Civil Appealclosed; remittitur issued

Parties
1Kanter, Jennifer (Plaintiff and Appellant)
Represented by Lee Matthew Gordon
Attorney at Law
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 2940
Los Angeles, CA

2Kanter, Jennifer (Plaintiff and Appellant)
Represented by Craig R. Spiegel
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA

3Albertsons, Inc. (Defendant and Respondent)
Represented by Rex S. Heinke
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA

4Kroger Company (Defendant and Respondent)
Represented by Rex S. Heinke
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA

5Safeway, Inc. (Defendant and Respondent)
Represented by Rex S. Heinke
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA

6Bristol Farms, Inc. (Defendant and Respondent)
Represented by Thomas Yale Barclay
Streeter & Nangano
555 W. Fifth Street, 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA

7Costco Wholesale Corporation (Defendant and Respondent)
Represented by Norman Howard Levine
Greenberg Glusker
1900 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA

8Ocean Beauty Seafoods, Inc. (Defendant and Respondent)
Represented by Allan B. Cooper
Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP
9401 Wilshire Blvd 9FL
Beverly Hills, CA

9Whole Foods Market (Defendant and Respondent)
Represented by Jay William Connolly
Seyfarth Shaw
560 Mission Street 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA

10Flores, Ivania Lourdes (Plaintiff and Appellant)
Represented by Chief Nnamdi A. Ekenna
Ekenna Nwajei & Company, LLP
4221 Wilshire Boulevard, #392
Los Angeles, CA

11Farm Raised Salmon Cases (Overview party)
12Trader Joes Company (Defendant and Respondent)
Represented by Carla Jean Christofferson
O'Melveny & Myers
1999 Ave of the Stars 7FL
Los Angeles, CA

13Center For Food Safety (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Kevin Scott Golden
The Center for Food Safety
2601 Mission Street, Suite 803
San Francisco, CA

14City & County Of San Francisco (Amicus curiae)
Represented by June D Cravett
Office of the District Attorney
732 Brannan Street
San Francisco, CA

15County Of Napa (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Daryl A. Roberts
Napa County Office of the District Attorney
931 Parkway Mall
Napa, CA

16County Of Marin (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Robert Eugene Nichols
Office of the District Attorney
Marin Civic Center
San Rafael, CA

17County Of Sonoma (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Matthew Thomas Cheever
Office of the District Attorney
2300 County Center Drive, Ste B-170
Santa Rosa, CA

18County Of San Mateo (Amicus curiae)
Represented by John Edward Wilson
Ofc District Attorney
400 County Center, 3rd floor
Redwood City, CA

19County Of Alameda (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Lawrence C. Blazer
Ofc Of District Attorney
7677 Oakport Street, Suite 650
Oakland, CA

20County Of Ventura (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Gregory William Brose
Ofc Of District Attorney
5720 Ralston Street, Ste. 300
Ventura, CA

21County Of Santa Clara (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Robin Beth Wakshull
Ofc Of District Attorney
70 West Hedding St
San Jose, CA

22County Of Monterey (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Steven George Holett
District Attorney of Monterey County
1200 Aguajito Road, Suite 301
Monterey, CA

23County Of Solano (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Criselda Barrera Gonzalez
DA Solano County
675 Texas Street
Fairfield, CA

24County Of San Diego (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Patricia Claire Pummill
Ofc District Attorney
330 W. Broadway, Ste. 750
San Diego, CA

25County Of Santa Cruz (Amicus curiae)
Represented by William R. Atkinson
Ofc District Attorney
701 Ocean St #200
Santa Cruz, CA

26City Attorney Of Los Angeles (Amicus curiae)
Represented by Donald James Kass
Office of the City Attorney
200 N. Main Street, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA


Disposition
Feb 11 2008Opinion filed

Dockets
Oct 6 2006Petition for review filed
  appellant Jennifer Kanter Attorney Steve W. Berman
Oct 10 2006Record requested
 
Oct 11 2006Request for depublication (petition for review pending)
  appellant Jennifer Kanter, et al., attorney Lee M. Gordon
Oct 11 2006Received Court of Appeal record
 
Oct 23 2006Opposition filed
  to depublication request respondents attorney Rex. S. Heinke
Oct 26 2006Answer to petition for review filed
  respondents Brsitol Farms, Inc. attorney Rex S. Heinke, retained.
Oct 30 2006Request for depublication (petition for review pending)
  non-party The firm of Strange & Carpenter
Nov 6 2006Reply to answer to petition filed
  appellant Jennifer Kanter
Nov 28 2006Time extended to grant or deny review
  to and including January 4, 2007, or the date upon which review is either granted or denied.
Dec 13 2006Petition for review granted (civil case)
  Votes: George, C. J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno and Corrigan, JJ.
Dec 26 2006Certification of interested entities or persons filed
  Appellant Jennifer Kanter Attorney Lee Matthew Gordon
Dec 27 2006Received:
  Revised Certification of Interested Entities or Persons for earlier filed CIP [filed 12-26-06] Appellant Jennifer Kanter Attorney Lee Matthew Gordon
Dec 28 2006Certification of interested entities or persons filed
  Respondents Albertsons, Inc., Attorney Rex S. Heinke, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP
Jan 12 2007Opening brief on the merits filed
  Jennifer Kanter, appellant Craig Spiegel & Lee M. Gordon, counsels
Jan 26 2007Request for extension of time filed
  counsel for respondent requests extension of time to March 15, 2007, to file the answer brief on the merits.
Feb 1 2007Extension of time granted
  On application of respondent and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the answer brief on the merits is extended to and including March 15, 2007.
Mar 15 2007Answer brief on the merits filed
  Respondent Bristol Farms, Inc.
Mar 21 2007Received:
  counsel for Costco Wholesale Corp., Late Joinder to Answer Brief on the merits by Bristol Farms, Inc.
Apr 2 2007Application for relief from default filed
  counsel for Costco Wholesale Corp, Inc. to file joinder to answer brief.
Apr 3 2007Filed:
  counsel for resp. (Costco), Joinder to Answer Brief on the Merits *** w/permission***
Apr 4 2007Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
  Appellant Jennifer Kanter
Apr 30 2007Request for extension of time filed
  District Attys of San Francisco, et al., requests extension of time to June 4, 2007, to file the application to file amicus curiae brief.
May 4 2007Extension of time granted
  On application of the District Attorneys of San Francisco et al., and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file the application for permission to file an amicus curiae brief is extended to and including June 4, 2007.
May 4 2007Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief
  The Center for Food Safety in support of appellants.
May 15 2007Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted
  The Center for Food Safety in support of appellants
May 15 2007Amicus curiae brief filed
  The application of the Center for Food Safety for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of appellants is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the brief.
Jun 4 2007Response to amicus curiae brief filed
  to a.c. brief of The Center for Food Safety respondents Albertson's Inc., The Kroger Company and Safeway Inc., Attorney Rex S. Heinke
Jun 4 2007Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief
  District Attorneys Office of San Francisco, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Solano, San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Ventura, Monterey, San Diego, and Santa Cruz, and City Attorney of the City of Los Angeles in support of appellants. by June D. Cravett, Counsel
Jun 8 2007Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted
  The District Attorneys of San Francisco, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Solano, San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Ventura, Monterey, San Diego and Santa Cruz Counties and the City Attorney of the City of Los Angeles, in support of the appellants.
Jun 8 2007Amicus curiae brief filed
  The application of the District Attorneys of San Francisco, Marin, Napa, Sonoma, Solano, San Mateo, Alameda, Santa Clara, Ventura, Monterey, San Diego and Santa Cruz Counties and the City Attorney of the City of Los Angeles for permission to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the appellants is hereby granted. An answer thereto may be served and filed by any party within twenty days of the filing of the brief.
Sep 13 2007Filed:
  Respondents Bristol Farms, Inc., supplmental brief [re :Fraker v. KFC a recent U.S. Dist Court dicision.)
Oct 5 2007Justice pro tempore assigned
  Hon. Nathan D. Mihara assigned. (12/15/06 Chief Justice George recused.)
Oct 25 2007Case ordered on calendar
  to be argued Tuesday, December 4, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. in Los Angeles.
Nov 7 2007Note:
  Notice of oral arg. sent to Atty Chief Nnamdi A. Ekenna, Mail returned, unable to forward.
Dec 4 2007Cause argued and submitted
 
Feb 8 2008Notice of forthcoming opinion posted
 
Feb 11 2008Opinion filed: Judgment reversed
  and Remanded. OPINION BY : Moreno, J. joined by: Kennard, J. Acting C.J., Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan, Mihara, JJ. (assigned by the Acting Chief Justice)
Mar 13 2008Remittitur issued (civil case)
 
Mar 21 2008Returned record
  2 doghouses.
Mar 24 2008Received:
  receipt for remittitur from CA 2/3
Mar 25 2008Note:
  records returned to CA 2/3
Mar 28 2008Received:
 

Briefs
Jan 12 2007Opening brief on the merits filed
 
Mar 15 2007Answer brief on the merits filed
 
Apr 4 2007Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
 
May 15 2007Amicus curiae brief filed
 
Jun 4 2007Response to amicus curiae brief filed
 
Jun 8 2007Amicus curiae brief filed
 
If you'd like to submit a brief document to be included for this opinion, please submit an e-mail to the SCOCAL website
Jan 9, 2009
Annotated by diana teasland

Written by Jeffrey Walker

Facts and Procedural History
Consumers (plaintiffs) filed a class action suit against grocery stores (defendants) alleging the stores had violated state and federal law by selling artificially colored farmed salmon without disclosing to consumers the use of color additives. The plaintiffs argued the defendants’ non-disclosure violated state and federal food disclosure requirements [Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, FDCA (21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.); Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (Health & Saf. Code, § 109875 et seq.)] and California’s consumer protection laws [Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, § 1750 et seq.); false advertising laws (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17500 et seq.)].

At trial, the defendants demurred on three counts: (1) the FDCA—21 U.S.C. § 337(a)—preempts plaintiffs’ state law claims; (2) the action should be dismissed under the primary jurisdiction doctrine because further consideration of the complaint could conflict with regulation and enforcement by the FDA or California’s Department of Health Services (DHS); and (3) plaintiffs failed to allege affirmative representation as required in order to state a cause of action under several provisions of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

Trial Court
The trial court granted the defendants’ demurrer and held that (1) the FDCA—21 U.S.C. § 337(a)—preempts the consumers’ state law claims, (2) that the dispute should be referred to the FDA or the DHS under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, and (3) that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for violation of the CLRA because they failed to allege the necessary affirmative representation.

Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal affirmed the Trial Court’s finding of preemption. It found that section 337(a) precludes private enforcement of the FDCA, that plaintiffs’ state law claims are predicated on a violation of the FDCA, and, therefore, that section 337(a) impliedly preempts plaintiffs’ state law claims.

The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether plaintiffs’ action was preempted by the FDCA.

Summary of the Opinion:
The Supreme Court held that the FDCA, 21 U.S.C. §337(a) did not preempt the plaintiffs action. The FDCA, in 21 U.S.C. § 343-1(a), grants permission to states to regulate color additives in foods as long as the state’s regulations are identical to the FDCA requirements established in 21 U.S.C. § 343(k). The Court examined the relevant California regulations and found them to be identical to the requirements in § 343(k) of the FDCA. The court concluded that these state laws were authorized under 21 U.S.C. § 343-1(a) and the plaintiffs could therefore seek that they were privately enforced. The Supreme Court subsequently reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment and remanded the matter to that court for further proceedings consistent with their ruling.