N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KATIE KANE; DAR

LA B OOTH; AR IANNA R OSALES, individually and on be ha lf of a ll othe rs sim ila rly situa te d, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. C HOB ANI, LLC , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15670 D.C . No. 5:12-c v-02425-LHK
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia L uc y H. Koh, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M arc h

16, 2016 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N, W ARD LAW , a

nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s . Ka tie Ka ne , Aria nna R osa le s, a

nd Da rla B ooth a

ppe a l the R

ule 12(b)(6) dism issa l of the ir puta

tive c la ss a c tion a sse rting c la i m s a ga inst C h oba n i, Inc . in
c onne c tion with C hoba

ni’ s la b e ling a nd sa le of y ogurt. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r



# FIL ED
MAR 24 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e va c a te the distric t c ourt’ s Fe brua ry 20, 2014 orde r gra

nting C hoba ni’ s m otion to dism

i ss the third a

m e nde d c om pla i nt. W e re m and for e ntry of
an orde r sta

y ing proc e e dings until suc h tim e a s the U.S. Food a n d Drug Adm inistra

tion (FDA) c om

ple te s its proc e e dings re ga rding the use of the te rm s

“ e v a porate d c ane juic e ” and “ natura l” in food la be l ing. W e re m and this a c tion to the distric t c ourt with instruc tions to e nte r a sta y of proc e e dings unde r the prim a ry jurisdic tion doc trine . Pla intiffs’ c la im s a rise from the i r a s se rtions tha

t C hoba ni de c e ptive ly and unla

wfully la be ls its y o gurt a s

“ natura l ” in viola

tion of FDA re gula

tions, a nd tha t C hoba ni de c e ptive l y

and unla wfully use s the te rm

“ e v a porate d c a ne juic e ” to de sc ribe its y ogurt’ s a dde d suga r ingre die n t. The de line ation of thesc o pe and pe rm issible usa ge of the te rm s

“ natura l ” an d “ e va

porate d c ane juic e ” in c onne c tion with food product s

“ ‘ im plic a te s te c hnic a l a

nd polic y que stions tha

t should be

a d dre sse d in the first insta nc e by the a ge nc y

with re gula

tory a uthority ove r the re le va

nt industry

ra the r tha n by the judic ia l bra

n c h.’ ” Astiana v . Hain C e l e stial Grp., Inc
. , 783 F.3d 753, 760 (9th C i r. 2015) (quoting C lark v . Time W

a r ne r C able , 523 F.3d 1110, 1114 (9th C ir. 2008)); se e a l

so 21 C .F.R . § 101.1 e t se q . , 131.200(d)(2), 168.110, 168.130.

2Although “ [c ] om m on se nse te lls us tha

t . . . a c ourt should not invoke prim ary jurisdic tion whe n the a ge nc y is a ware of but ha s e xpre sse d no inte re st in the s ubje c t m atte r of the litiga tion,” Astiana , 783 F.3d a t 761, this is not suc

h a
c a se . In Nove m

b e r 2015, the FDA issue d a re que st for c o m

m e nts re ga

rding the
use of the te rm “ natura l ” in c onne c tion with food product la be ling. Se e Use of the Te rm “Na tura l” in the La

be l ing of Hum an Food Produc ts; R e que st for Inform a tion
and C om m e nts, 80 Fe d. R e g. 69,905 (Nov. 12, 2015). And, in July 2015, the FDA
re pre se nte d tha

t it e xpe c t s to issuefina l guida nc e on the te rm

“ e v a p ora te d c ane juic e ” by the e n d of 2016. Le tte r from

Le slie Kux, Assoc . C o m

m ’ r for Polic y , FDA, to Judge Edwa

rd C he n, U.S. Dist. C ourt for the N. Dist. of C a l. (July 8, 2015); s e e also Dra ft Guida nc e for Industry on Ingre die nts De c la re d a s Eva

porate d C ane Juic e ; R e ope ning of C om m e nt Pe riod; R e que st for C om m e nts, Da

ta , a nd Inform a t ion, 79 Fe d. R e g. 12,507 (M ar. 5, 2014). Give n the ongoing FDA proc e e dings re ga rding the te rm s “ nat

ura l” and

“ e v a porate d c ane juic e ,” we c onc lude tha t re solution of this a

c tion will not be
ne e dle ssly

de la y e d and tha t judic ia l re sourc e s will be c onse rve d by sta y ing the se proc e e dings. Se e Astiana , 783 F.3d a t 760 (“ [E] ffic i e nc y

is the de c iding fa c tor in whe the r to invoke prim ary jurisdic t ion.” ) (c ita

t ion om itte d).

3W e V ACAT E an d R E M AND w ith instruc tions tha t the distric t c ourt sta

y this a c t ion pe nding re solution of the FDA’ s “ n a tura l” and “ e va porat e d c an e juic e ” proc e e dings. 1 Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r its own c osts on a

ppe a l.

1 W e note tha

t the duration of thesta

y re m a ins within the

sound disc re tion of the d istric t c o urt. If future e ve nts re nde r the FDA’ s a ppa re n tly im m ine nt re solution of the

“ e v a porate d c ane juic e ” and “ natura l ” issue s illusory , suc h e ve nts should inform

the distric t c ourt’ s e xe rc i se of its disc re tion. Se e Astiana , 783 F.3d a t 762. 4