## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 3267 C AR OLY N T UREK, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. G ENERAL M IL LS, I NC
. an d K EL LOG G C O ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:09- cv-07038

—Robert W . G ettleman, Judge
.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 9, 2011

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 17, 2011

Befo re C UDAH Y, P OSNER, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd ism iss ed th is di ve r si tyc l as s ac ti o n s ui t ( which s ee k s damag es a nd o th err el i eff o r a l l eg ed vi o l at i o ns o fthe I ll inois Co nsum erFr aud and De c ep tive Busi ness Pract i ces A ct, 81 5 I LCS 5 0 5 , a nd t he I l l i no i s Uni f o r m D e c e pt i v e Tr a de Pract i ces A ct, 81 5 I LC S 510) f orwant of fe d er alsubj ectm atter j urisd iction , on the grou nd that the claim s are ba r r ed byfederall aw. The r e ar e two i ni ti alpuz zl es . The2 N o. 10

- 3267 firs t is w h y, alt h ou gh th e p lain tif f ’ s c om p lain t c lea rly and i n gr eatdetai l descr ibes the s uitas a cl ass act i on sui t, the dist ri ct j ud ge did notm enti on that i t was a cl ass act i on s uit o r c onsi der whether i t s houl d be c er tifie d as a cla ss ac tio n ; n or d o th e ca p tio n s in t h is cour t i nd ica te that i t is a c l as s ac ti o n. Appar en tl y the p lain tiff n ev er ev en so u gh t c las s c e rt ifica tio n, an d in th os e c irc u m st an c es th e d ism is s a l o f th e p lain tiff’s cla im te rm in at es th e s u it. Gr e i s z v. H ou s e ho l d Ban k (Il l i n oi s ) , N. A. , 176 F. 3d 1012 , 10 15 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ; se e a l so Boardof Schoo l C om m is si oners of City of Indianap olis v. Jacobs , 42 0 U
. S. 12 8, 129-3 0 ( 1975 ) ( per curi am )

. Onlyaftera cl ass i s ce rt i fi ed can the suit s u rvi ve dism i ssa l o fthe nam ed pla i nti f f’ s cl ai m , by subst i tuti on o fano therm em bero f th e class as na m ed plaintiff

. The s ec o nd puz zl e i s th e di smi ss alo fthe su it f o r want o ffede r alj ur i sdi ct i o n. The d istr i ctj udg e r ul ed th atthe pla i nti f f’ s cl ai m s were preem pted ( bar re d) b y fed eral l aw , bu t th e f act that a defendant has a g oo d defens e t o a s tat e la w cl ai m does notm ean that the co m pla i nt does not invo ke f edera l j uri sdic ti on. There i s a n excepti on t o th i s pr i nc i pl e, c al l ed “c o m pl et e pr ee m pti o n”

— “a m i snom er, hav in g nothi ng to do with pree m pti on a nd ev er ythi ng to do with federa l o ccupati on o f a fi el d,” Le hm ann v. Br own , 23 0 F
. 3d 916, 91 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)

— for ca se s in w h ich fed er al la w so p er va d es a fi e l d t h at an y c laim pu rpor tedl y b ase d on st ate l aw would act u al l y b e ba sed onfe de r a l l a w, s t a t e l a w h a v i ngb e e n t o t a l l y di s pl a c ed b y fe d er al. Ben e

f i ci al Nat i onal Bank v

. Ande rs on , 5 39 U
. S. 1, 8 ( 20 03 )

. W ere thi s a ca se o fc o m pl et e pr ee m pti o n the pla i nti f f’ s purpor ted st ate cl ai m w ou l d actual l y b e aN o. 10

- 3267 3 f edera l cl ai m . The cl ai m would invo ke f edera l j uri sdic

ti on but w oul d be q u ick l y di sm i sse d on the m er i ts b e c a u s e th e r e i s n o b a s i s f o r th e c l a i m i n fe d e r a l l a w. Avco C o rp. v. Ae r o L odgeNo. 73 5 , 39 0 U.S

. 55 7, 56 1 (19 68 ); Faya r d v

. Nor t he as tVe hi cl eSe r vi ce s , LL C, 533 F. 3d 42, 45-46 ( 1st C ir. 2008). Th e d i st r i c tj ud g e di d n o ta l l ud e t o c o mpl e t e p r e e mpti on, and th is i s no t a cas e withi n i ts sco pe, bec ause the pr eem pti ng st atute

— th e N ut r i ti o n Labe l in ga nd Ed ucati on Act of199 0, Pub. L. N o. 10 1- 535, 10 4 S tat
. 2353

— di s c l a i ms f e de r a l o c c up a t i o n o fthe fi e l d. S e c t i on 6( c ) ( 1 ) , 1 0 4 S t a t
. 2 3 6 4 , s a y s th e Ac t “ s h a l l n o t b e c o nstr ued to preem pt any provi si on o fS tat e l aw , unl ess such prov i si on i s e xpr es sly pree m pted und erse cti on 403A of th e Fed eral Food, Dr u g , and Cos m etic A ct.” So the pl ai nti f f’ s stat e l aw cl ai m i s a ge nuine sta te l aw c l a im , an d on e w ith in th e d ive rs ity j u ris d ict ion . I f it i s p r e e mp t e d, di s mi s s a l i s th e p r o p e r o u t c o me

— but di sm i ssa l o n the m er its , w ith prej ud i ce l i ke othe r m er i ts j ud gm ents, notdi sm i ssa l f orwant offedera l j ur i sdi ct i o n. T o th e me r i t s , th e n . T h e p l a i n t i ff’ s ta r g e t s a r e “ c h e wy b a rs ” m ad e a n d so ld by th e d efe n d an ts . (Th es e s h ou ld not be c onfused w i th the p ro d u c t s ol d by QuakerOats und eri ts tr adem ar k “ Qu ake r Ch ew y Bar s, ” wh ich is not ati ss ue in th is c as e, tho ug h the r e i s a si m i l arc as e i nvo lvin g t h atp ro d u c t: Ch a canac a v. Q uake rO at s Co. , 75 2 F. Sup p . 2d 1111 (N

. D
. C al. 2010 ). ) T yp ic a l is K ell ogg’s ch o c o l a t e - c h i p b a r “ F ib e r P l u s . ” A s i d e p a n e l o ft he FiberPl us bo x conta i n s a tabl e ca pti oned “N utri ti on4 N o. 10

- 3267 Fact s” ( the t abl e i s r equi re d on packa ges of al l packa ged f oo d i tem s, 21 U .S.C . § 34 3( q)( 1) ; 21 C. F. R. § 101. 9) wh i ch state s tha t a se r ving con tains 9 gram s of “D ietary Fiber” and that thi s i s 3 5 per cent ofo ne’ s “ D aily Val ue” o f die tar y fiber

. On the fro nt o fthe box a ci rcl e e ncl ose s the words “ 35% o fyo ur dai l y f i ber .” The c om pla i nt al l ege s that the pri nci pal fiber, by w eight , i n Fiber Plu s bars (as i n th e othe r chew y bars m ad e by th e d efend an ts) i s inulin ex tracte d from chic o ry ro ot. The co m pla in t d escr ibes i nuli n so extr acte d (a s dist i nct fro m inu l i n f ound, and consum ed w i thout i ts havi ng be en pro cess ed, i n banan as , oni ons, l eek s, J er usalem art ich ok es , an d ot h er ve ge ta b les ) as a “n on -n at u ra l” fibe r. T h is m ay se em an od d w ay to d es c rib e in u lin d er ive d from ch ico ry roo t, a p lan t; bu t w h a t i s m ea n t is that thi s i nuli n i s p ro cess ed, wh er eas i fyo u eata b a n a n a y o u a r e g e t t i n gi n u l i n i n a n u n p r o c e s s e d f o r m. N o wher e d oes th e F ibe r Pl us b o x s ta te tha t th e pr i nc i palfibe r i s i nul i n fr o m c hi cor y r o o t, tho ug h the lab el d oe s list “c h ico ry roo t e x tr ac t” first, an d “in u lin f r o m c hi co r y r o o t” a few i te m s l ater, i n the l i sto fthe product’ s i ngre die nts. The co m pl ai nt al l eg es th at i nul i n pr o vi des f ewe r o fthe ben e fi t s o f c o ns umi ng fib e r ( the s e a r e mai nl y pro m o tingthe r egul ar i tyo fb owel move m en ts , l o wer i ng ch o les te r o l, a nd mak i ngi t ea si ert o a vo i d g ai ni ng wei g ht ) , c au se s st o m ac h pr o bl ems in s o m e peo p le , a nd i s har m ful to w om en wh o ar e pr egnant orbr eas t feedi ng. N owh er e does the pack age st ate thatthe product conta i ns a f or m o ffibe r that i s i nfe ri orto “natural ” fiberN o. 10

- 3267 5

an d a ctua l l y ha r m ful t o s om e co ns um er s. ( Altho ug h the pr o c e d u r a l p o s t u r e o f th e c a s e r e q u i r e s u s t o a s s u me th e tr uth ofthe plain ti ff’ s a l l ega ti ons, we ofco urse do not vo u c h for t h eir tru th , w h ich th e d efe n d an ts vig or ou sly c on te st .) The com p laint thus st ate s a ga rden- var i etyco nsum er pr o t e c t i o n c l a i m, b uto ne b l o c k e d, the di s t r i c tj ud ge r ul e d, b y f e de r a l l a w. A pr o v i s i o n o f the F e de ra l Fo o d, Drug, and Cosm eti c Act, 21 U .S.C . § 34 3- 1( a) ( 5) , added by the Nu tr i ti on Label i ng and Ed ucati on A c t o f19 90, f orbi ds sta tes ( orthei r pol i ti c al su bdivi si ons, a quali fi cat i o n we c a n i g no r e ) t o i mpo s e “ a nyr e qu i r e men tr especti ng any cl ai m of the type described i n sect i on 3 43( r) ( 1) [ o f t h e F o o d , Dr u g, a n d C o s me t i c Ac t ]
. . . ma d e i n t he l ab e l o r l a b e l i ng o f f o o d tha t i s no t i de nt i c a l t o the r equir em ent o fse cti on 3 43( r)

. ” The s ta te thus c an i m pose th e i de nt i ca l r equi r emento r r equi r ement s, a nd b y do i ng so b e e nabl ed, bec ause ofthe narr ow scope o fthe preem pti on pro vi si on i n the N u tri ti on Label i ng and Ed ucatio n A ct, to enf or ce a vi ol ati on o fthe A ct a s a vi ol ati on o fst ate l aw . S ee al so In re P epsic o , In c . B o ttled Wa ter M arke t i ng and Sal e s Pr ac t i ce s Li t igat i on , 588 F. Sup p. 2d 52 7, 5 3 2 ( S

. D. N. Y. 2 0 0 8 ) ; “ Be v e r a g e s : Bo t t l e d Wa t e r, ” 6 0 F e d. R eg . 570 76 , 571 20 (Fin al R u l e, N ov . 13, 19 95 ). Th is is i m port ant be cause the F oo d, Dru g, and Cosm eti c Act d oe s n ot cr ea te a p riv a t e r i g h t o f ac tio n . M e dt r oni c, Inc . v. Lohr, 518 U .S. 47 0, 48 7 (1 99 6); K em p v. M edtronic, Inc. , 231 F.3d 216, 236 (6th Cir. 2000). A s tat e ca n al so askthe Foo d and D rug A dm i ni str ati on t o exem pt fro m the r eq u i re m ent o f“i denti cal ness” a6 N o. 10

- 3267
state ( or l ocal) r eq uirem en t “d esig n e d to ad d ress a p arti cul ar need f or i nfo rm ati on w hi ch need i s not m et by the r equi re m ents” i m posed by f edera l l aw . 21 U
. S. C. § 3 43- 1( b) ( 3)

. But nei therI l l i noi s no r an y ofi ts pol i ti cal subdivs i ons has o bta ined

— o r e v e n, a s f a r a s we k n o w, so ug ht

— su cha n e xe m pti o n. I t i s e asy to se e why Congre ss w oul d no t w an t to al l ow sta tes to i m pose disc l osur e r equi re m ents ofthei r own o n pac k ag ed f o o d pr o duct s, most of whi cha r e so l d na ti o nwi de. M an uf ac tu r er s m i ghtha ve t o pr i nt 5 0 di ff er en t lab els , d riv in g c on s u m e rs w h o b u y foo d p ro d u c ts in m or e than one sta te cra zy. The cri ti calquesti on pre sen ted by the appeal i s there

f o r e wh a tr e q u i r e me n t s th e fe d e r a l l a w i mpo s e s o n t he l ab el i ngo fdi et ar y fibe r . S ec ti o n 3 43 ( r ) ( 1) ( A) g o ve r ns “a cl ai m . . . m ade in the lab elor l abel i ng of

. . . f oo d w hi ch ex pr es sl y o r b y im p l i ca ti o n c ha r ac te r i ze s th e l ev elo fa ny nutri ent which i s o fth e ty pe r equi re d by [ sect i on 34 3](q )(1) .” So w e g o t o s ec tio n 34 3(q )(1) an d find in su b s e ction (D ) a requ irem en t (the only statu tory l abel i ng r equi re m ent that i s per ti nent t o th is case ) that the “ l abelo r l abel i ng” o ff oo d products i ntended fo r human c o ns um pti o n s ta te “ th e amoun t o f

. . . di etary fibe r . . . c on ta in ed in ea c h se rv in g s ize or ot h er u n it o fme a s ur e . ” O t h e r r e q u i r e me n t s f o r l a b e l i n gc l a i ms r el at i n gt o d i e t a r y fib e r a r e s e tf o r th i n i mpl e me n t i ng r egul at i o ns ofthe F o o d a nd Dr ugAdm i ni st r at i o n the va l i di tyo fwhi chi s no t ch al l en g ed. The f o r m a nd c o nt en t of such clai m s are set forth in 21 C

. F.R. § 101.54(d ). T h e la b elin g of F ibe r P lu s a n d th e o th er p ro d u c ts ch al-N o. 10

- 3267 7 l enged bythe pla i nti ffi s co m pli ant with th at re gul ati on a n d w i th th e o t h e r r e g u l a t i o n s r e l a t i n gt o h e a l th c l a i ms f o r di et ar y fiber

. S ee , e . g . , 2 1 C. F
. R. § 1 01

. 76

. Al l the F DA ’ s r equi r ement s r el at i ngt o l ab el i ngtha t m en ti o ns d ietaryfiberar e i ncor pora ted i n sec ti on 3 43( r) ( 1) as re quir em ents to w hi ch any l abel i ng di scl osur es re quir ed b y a st at e m u st b e i d e n t ica l. C f. Ci ty of Ne w Yo rk v. F CC, 486 U

. S. 57, 63-64 (1988). The di sc l ai m er s th atthe pl ai nt i ffwant s adde d t o the labeli ng of th e d e fen d an ts’ i nu li n-con taining ch ew y bars ar e no t i denti cal to the l abel i ng r equi re m ents i m posed on su chpr o duct s byfede r all aw, an d so th ey ar e ba r r ed. The i nf o r mat i o n re qui r e d b y fe de r a l l a w do e s n o ti nc l ud e d isc los in g t h at th e fib er in t h e p ro d u c t in c lu d es inu lin orthata product co ntai ni ng i nuli n p roduces few er he al th b en efi ts tha n a pr o ducttha t co nt ai ns o nl y “ na tu
ra l” fiber, o r that i nuli n f ro m chi cor y r oo t s houl d not b e c on su m ed by p re gn an t o r lac ta t i n g w om en . Th e o n ly m enti on o fi nuli n that w e h ave f ound in a federa l r egula ti on a pp ear s i n a r egul ati on i ssued by the Dep ar tm en t of A gri cul tu r e th atl i st s i nul i n a s o ne o fthe “nonor gani cal l y pr oduced agricul tura l pro du cts [ that] m ay be u s e d a s i ng r e di e nt s i n o r o n pr o c e s s e d p r o du c ts labeled as ‘or gan ic. ’ ” 7 C

. F.R
. § 205.606(m ). Th e term “nonor gani cal l y pr oduced” i nd i cate s that the r efer ence is to, or at least inclu d e s, inu li n ex tracte d from chicory ro ot. Even i f the disc l ai m er s that the pla i nti ff w an ts added w oul d be co nsi ste nt with the r equi re m ents i m p osed by th e F o o d, Dr ug, a nd Co smet i c Act, c o ns i st en cyi s no t th e8 N o. 10

- 3267
tes t; i denti ty i s. M aybe s uch disc l ai m er s would be a g o o d thi ng( ani ss ue o n whi chwe ta k e no po si tion) a nd the F DA sho uld r eq uir e them , but that i s i rr el evantto th is a p p ea l. A l though i t i s m erel y i ci ng o n the cake , we add that the pl ai nti f f’ s s uitf ai l s to sta te a cl ai m und er the pr i nci pal Illino is law on w h i c h s h e p itc h es h er ca se . Th e Illino is Consum erFr aud and Decepti ve Bu si ness Pract i ces A ct d oe s n ot ap p ly to “a c tio n s o r tr an sa c tio n s s p ec ifica lly au th orized by l aw s ad m inistered by any regulatory b od y or offic er ac tin g u n d er st at u to ry au th or ity of th is S ta te o r th e Uni te d S ta te s. ” 81 5 I LCS 50 5/ 10 b( 1)

. The re prese ntati ons on the packa gi ng o fthe de f endants’ c h ew y b ar s c on c er n in g d iet ar y fib e r a re sp ec ifica lly author i zed by th e f edera l st atute s a nd r egul ati ons that we ’ v e di s c us s e d. W e hav e no t m enti oned al l the i ssues pre sent ed by t h e p l a i n t i f f’ s a p p e a l b e c a us e he r c l a i ms r e l a t i n gt o s o me ofthem ar e fri volou s, i nsuffi ci entl y e xplai ned i n her briefs to be intelli gible, or forfeited becau se th ey w ere not prese nted i n the dist ri ct c ourt
. The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s a l ter ed to a j ud gm ent o fdi sm i ssa l under F ed. R. Ci v. P. 12 (b )(6) with p rej u d ice , an d so alt er ed is A FFI RMED .

10- 17- 11