N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NOELLE M AJOR , individually and on be ha lf of a ll othe rs sim ila rly situa te d , Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. OC EAN SPR

A Y C R ANB ERR IES, INC ., De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 15-15880 D.C . No. 5:12-c v-03067-EJD
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 Edwa rd J. Da vila , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 19, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd STAFFOR

D, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
M AY 08 2017 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble W illia m H. Sta fford, Jr., Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Florida , sitting by de signa tion.Pla intiff Noe lle M a jor a p pe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of Oc e an Spray , Inc . in he r puta tive c la ss a c tion a lle ging m isbra nding of juic e drinks. W e a ffirm
. 1. M a jor first c la i m s the drinks we re im prope rly la be le d a s “ No Suga r Adde d .” The undispute d e vide nc e e sta blishe d, howe ve r, tha

t the drinks a

re m a de from juic e c onc e ntrate s with wa te r a dde d. The re is no m ore suga r in the drinks a s sold tha n the re wa s in the origina l juic e s be fore the y we re c onc e ntrate d. The
c onc lusory

a ffidavit of Pla intiff’ s e xpe rt wa s insuffic ie nt to c a l l into que stion the proc e s s of m ixing thejuic e drinks. Se e Unite d State s v . Various Slot Mac

hine s on Guam , 658 F.2d 697, 699–700 (9th C ir. 1981). Although Pla intiff sugge s ts tha

t the ble n d of diffe re nt juic e s m ay have se rve d to m a ke the c ranbe rry and pom e granate juic e drink swe e t e r tha

n c ran be rry and pom e granate juic e a lone would ha ve be e n, the l a be l sta te d tha t the produc t wa s a

ble nd of juic e s, a

n d the la be ling wa s
c om plia nt with fe de ra l re g ulations, se e 21 C .F.R . § 102.33(d). Ac c o rdingly , the re
wa s no ge nuine issue of m a te ria l fa c t a s to the im prope r la be ling c la im s with
re spe c t to a dde d suga

r. Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s a

ppropria te . Se e Fe d. R

u le C iv. Proc . 56(a ); S

ate riale v . R. J . Re y n olds Tobac c o C

o. , 697 F.3d 777, 793 (9th C ir. 2012). 2. Sum

m a ry judgm e nt wa s a lso a

ppropria t e a s to Pla intiff’ s othe r
2m isla

be ling c la im

unde r C a lifornia

la w. Pla intiff’ s the ory

wa s tha t, be c a u se of the

“No Suga r Adde d” la

be l ing, the la

be ls a lso should ha

ve c onta ine d a

disc la im e r inform ing c ustom e rs tha

t the juic e wa s not low c a lorie and dire c ting c ustom e rs to the l a be l’ s nutrition pa

ne l. S e e 21 C .F.R . § 101.60(c )(2)(v). The c la im fa ils be c a use C a lifornia

la w re quire s a c t

ua l re lia nc e . Se e K

w i k se t C orp. v . Supe rior C ourt , 51 C a l . 4th 310, 326 (2011); In reTobac c o II C ase s , 46 C a l . 4th 298, 306 (2009). The re is no showing tha t Pla intiff re lie d on the a

bse nc e of the disc la im e r in purc ha sing the drinks. Pla i ntiff’ s own te stim o ny e sta blishe d tha

t she unde rstood that the juic e wa s not low c a lorie and tha t it c onta ine d

the sa m e am ount of suga

r a s juic e not m a de from

c onc e ntrate . AFFIRM E D
.

3