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

ALEC FISHER , e t

al. , Pla intiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. M ONSTER

B EVER AGE C OR POR ATION a nd M O NSTER ENER G Y C OM PANY, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-57094 D.C . No. 5:12-c v-02188-VAP-OP
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Virginia A. Phillips, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 7, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FAR

R IS, SENTELLE, ** a

nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED
JUL 08 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.

** The Honora

ble Da vid B ry a n

Se nte lle , Se nior C irc uit Judge for the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Distric t of C olum b ia C irc uit, sitting by

de signa tion.Pla intiffs-Appe l la n ts Ale c Fishe r, M a tthe w Townse nd, a n d Te d C ross (c olle c tiv el y, Pla intiffs) a ppe a l the d ism i ssa l of the ir p uta tive c onsum e r c la ss a c tion

r eg ar d i n g the sa fe ty of c e rta in e ne rgy drinks (M onste r Drinks) produc e d by De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s M onste r B e ve ra ge C o rpora tion a nd M onste r Ene rgy C om pa ny (c olle c tive ly , M o nste r). W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e a ffirm in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, a nd re m a nd for furthe r proc e e dings. 1 . We b e gin with t

he que stion o f s ta

nding. Pla intiffs’ se c ond a m e nd ed
c om pla i nt (SAC ) m a ke s two ty pe s of c la i m s— “ on-la

be l ” c la im s a nd “ o f

f -la be l”
c la im s. The “ o ff-la

be l” c l a im s a lle ge tha t M o nste r e n ga ge d in a fa lse a nd de c e ptive

m a rke ting c a m

pa ign ta rge ting c hildre n a nd a d ole sc e nts. The “ on-la be l” c la im s a lle ge
c e rta in spe c ific m isre pre se n t a tions, inc l uding a fa ilure to wa rn co n s u m e rs of the
c a ffe ine c onte nt, on the la be ls a nd pa c k a g ing of the M onste r Drinks. Fishe r is t he only p la intiff whose a lle ga tions c a n be re a d as alle ging e xposure to M o nste r’ s off-la

be l m a rke t ing. At the sa m e tim e , Fishe r fa ils to a lle ge tha t he re lie d
on a ny spe c ific m isre pre se nta tions by M onste r, inste a d c la im ing only tha t h e “ ha d n o
re a s on to be l ie ve ” tha

t M onste r Drinks we re “ n ot sa fe or pose d he a lth risks.” Tha t is not a suffic ie nt al le g a tion o f injury -in-fa c t t o support sta nding. Se e K

w ik se t C orp. v . Supe rior C

ourt , 246 P.3d 877, 890 (C a l. 2 0 1 1 ). The re fore , Fishe r a nd the off-la be l
c la im s do not survive

M onste r’ s m otion to dism i ss.
2A s to Townse nd a nd C ross, M onste r d oe s not c ha l le nge t he d istric t c our t ’s holding tha

t the y ha ve Artic le III sta

nding. W e a gre e with the distric t c ourt tha t the y do. 2. Ne xt, w e c onside r w he the r Pla intiffs suc c e ssfully sta te d a c la im for re lie f. As
re le va nt to this a

ppe a l, Pla intiffs a sse rted cause s of a c tion unde r t hre e C a lifornia sta tute s: the C onsum e r Le ga l R e m e die s A c t (C LR A), C a l. C iv. C ode § 1750 e t se q . , the Fa lse Adve rtising La w s ( F A L ) , Cal. B us. & Prof. C ode § 17500 e t se q . , a nd the Unfa ir C o m

pe titi o n Law ( U CL ), C a l. B us. & Prof. C o de § 17200 e t se q. T he thre e st at u tes c ove r inte rre la te d ha rm s. A c om

pla int is suffic ie nt with re ga rd to a ll thre e sta tute s w he n it a l le ge s tha t (i) a re pre se nta tion wa s m a de , (ii) i t wa s fa lse or like ly to
m isle a d a re a sona

ble c onsum e r, (iii) the pla intiff sa w a nd re lie d on the re pre s e nta tions for the ir truth in purc ha sing the ite m , a nd (iv) the pla i ntiff would not ha ve bought the ite m othe rwise
. Se e K

e e gan v . Am. Honda Motor C o . , 838 F. Supp. 2 d 9 29, 938 (C .D. C a l. 2012); K

w ik se t , 246 P.3d a t 890-91; In re Tobac c o II C ase s , 207 P.3d 20, 29 & n.8 (C a l. 2009). T ow n se n d a lle ge s tha t he re lie d on M onste r’ s sta t e m e nts on a M onste r Drink tha t “ re c o m

m e nds c onsum e rs lim i t da ily c onsum ption t o thre e c a ns.” He furthe r
a lle ge s tha t he “ re a d a nd re lie d o n M onste r’ s a ffirm a tive re pre se n t a tions tha t” e a c h of the M onste r D rinks he p urc h a se d “ ‘ que nc he s thirst’ ” a nd “ ‘h y dra te s like a sports
3drink.’ ” B a se d on the se re pre s e nta tions, he purc ha se d a nd c o nsum e d M onste r Drinks,

a lbe it “ n e ve r . . . m ore t

ha n thre e c a ns a da y a s pre sc ribe d on the l a

be ling.” Howe ve r,
a fte r five y e a rs of c o nsum ing M onste r D rinks, h e e xpe rie nc e d he a rt pa lpita

t ions a n d his b lood pre ssure wa s m e a s ure d a t the c ritic a lly h igh a ve ra ge of 22 5 o ve r 139. Sim ila rly , C ross a lle ge s tha t h e purc ha se d a M o nste r D rink with the sta te m e nt: “ It’ s the ide a l c om

bo of t he right ingre die nts in the right proportion to de l ive r the big b a d buz z tha t only M onste r c a n” (Ide a l C om bo Sta te m e nt). C ross “ re lie d” on Ide a l C om b o Sta t e m e nt’ s re pre se nta tion “ to m e a n tha t M onste r D rinks w e re sa fe (or n ot unsa fe ) for
c onsum ption,” a n d would not h a ve purc ha se d t h e Drinks but for tha t re p re se nta tion. Although the sta

te m e nts upon whic h Townse nd a nd C ross re lie d w e re not stric tly fa lse , it is pla

usible tha t the y we re m isle a ding, whic h is a ll t ha t C a lifornia l a w
re quire s. Se e

, e .g. , K ask y v . N ik e , Inc

. , 45 P.3d 243, 249 (C a l. 2002); K e e gan , 838 F. Supp. 2 d a t 938. M ore ove r, e a c h h a s suffic ie ntly p le a d his injury

— i.e
. , tha t he suffe re d ha

rm from c onsum ing the M onste r Drinks— a nd t ha t but for the s ta te m e nts
o n the la be ls of the M onste r D rinks a s sa fe (or n ot unsa fe ), ne ithe r w o ul d h av e purc ha se d a nd c onsum e d M onste r Drinks. A ccordingly , with re spe c t to the on-la be l fa lse - a nd d e c e ptive -m a rke ting c la im s, Townse nd a n d C ross ha ve sta te d cla im s for
re lie f. Furthe rm o r e, the y ha ve m e t the re quire m e nts of Fe de ra l R u l e of C ivil

4Proc e d

ure 9 b y se t ting forth “ wha t is fa l se or m isle a ding
. . . a nd why it is fa l se .” Ve ss
v . C iba-Ge igy C orp. USA , 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th C ir. 2003). 3. W e ne x t c onside r w he the r Pla intiffs’ c la im s a r e pre e m pte d by the fe de ra l F o od, Drug, a n d C osm e tic Ac t (FDC A), 21 U .S.C
. § 3 01 e t se q. W e be gin w it h a pre s um ption a ga inst pre e m

ption. Me dtronic

, Inc . v . Lohr , 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996). The FDC A e xpre ssly pre e m pts sta te la ws t ha t e sta blish “ a ny re quire m e n t for nutrition la be ling of food t

ha t is n ot ide ntic a l to t

he re quire m e nt of [c e rta i n sta t utory provisions, inc l uding 21 U.S.C
. § 343(q)] .” § 343-1(a )(4); se e also 21 C .F.R
. § 100.1(c )(4) (e xpla ining the m e a ning of “ not ide ntic a l” ). Fe d e ra l la w a lso p rovide s, howe ve r, tha t this provision “ sha ll not be c onstrue d to a pply t o an y r e quire m e n t re spe c ting a sta te m e nt in the l a

be ling of food tha t provide s for a wa rning c onc e rning the sa fe t y of the food or c om

p o ne n t of the food.” Pub. L
. N o . 1 0 1 -535, § 6(c )(2), c o d ifie d in 2 1 U.S.C . § 343-1, a

t 94. Title 21 U.S.C
. § 3 43(q) gove rns nutrition-inform a tion la b e ls , inc l uding for die t a ry supple m e nts, a nd provide s only tha t if c a ff ei n e is a dde d to a food, it m ust be inc l ude d in the ingre die nt l i st. Se e § 3 43(q)(5)(F); Fe d. Food a nd Drug A dm in., W hy isn’t the amount of c affe ine a produc t c ontains r equire d o n a f ood labe l? , http://www.fda .gov/AboutFDA/Tra nspa re nc y /B a sic s/uc m 194317.htm (la st visite d June 30, 201 6 )
. N othing a t the fe de ra l le ve l re quire s M o nste r to inc lude on the la be l

5t he amount of c a ffe ine in its M onste r D rinks m a rke te d a s d i e ta

ry supple m en t s o r as

“ food” or b e ve ra ge produc ts. C f. 21 C
. F.R
. § 3 40.50 (re g ula ting the l a be lin g of
c a ffe ine in drugs for hum a n use ). Howe ve r, if Pla i ntiffs we re to suc c e e d on the ir onla be l c la i m s re ga

rding the a m ount of c a ffe i ne in M o nste r Drinks, the n the o nly re m e dy would re q

uire a s m uc h
. The re fore , the se c la im s a re c le a rly pre e m pte d, a s the y se e k to e nforc e a n i ngre die nt-la be l ing obliga

t ion be y ond wha t fe de ra l la w re quire s. Se e 2 1 U.S.C . § 343-1(a )(4); 21 C .F.R . § 100.1(c )(4). W ith re spe c t to Pla intiffs’ othe r on-la be l c la im s alle g ing fa lse or de c e ptive
a dve rtising a nd m a

rke ting, we do not a gre e with the distric t c ourt tha t those c la im s a re pre e m pte d. Pla intiff

s ar e not s e e king furthe r disc losure with re spe c t to nutritiona lla be ling re quire m e nts, but a re in s t ead s ee king t o re m o ve a ny fa lse or m isle a ding sta te m e nts or om issions, or t o a d d the sort of sa fe ty w a rnings e xpre ssly e xc lude d from pre e m ption. Se e Pub
. L. No. 101-535, § 6(c )(2). For insta nc e , Pla intiffs a lle ge tha t the Ide a l C om

b o Sta te m e nt is fa lse a nd m i s l ea d i ng re ga rding pote ntia l he a lth risks. The re m e dy for t

ha t c la im doe s not re q

uire M onste r to provide c onsum e rs with m ore inform a t ion a

bout the a m o unt of c a ffe ine in the ir produc ts. Thus, the on-la be l c la im s
re ga rding fa lse sta

te m e nts or om issions tha t do not trigge r c a ffe ine -disc losure
re quire m e nts a

re not pre e m

pte d by the FDC A.

64. Fina lly , we c onside r whe the r the d istric t c ourt prope rly a p plie d t he prim a ry jurisdic tion doc trine t o the s u r viving c l a im s. Pla intiffs d o n ot a l le ge tha t M onste r’ s
m a rke ting of the M onste r Drinks viola te d the FDC A, a nd do not se e k to im p ose a ny la be ling re quire m e nts inc onsiste nt w ith fe d e ra l la w. Inste a d, the y a lle ge viola tions of
c onsum e r-prote c tion la

w s re la te d to de c e ptive m a rke ting a n d a dve rtising. Suc h c a se s
a re n ot in the sole purvie w of the FDA; inde e d, c ourts routine l y re solve suc h c la im s. The re fore , the distric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion in a

pply ing the prim a ry -jurisdic tion doc trine to the surviving on-la be l c la im s . Se e C

l ark v . Time W

arne r C a ble , 523 F.3d 1110, 1115 ( 9 t h Ci r . 2008) ; C hav e z v . Blue Sk

y N atural Be v e r age C

o . , 268 F.R .D. 365, 368, 374-75 (N.D.C a l
. 2 0 1 0) (holding tha t the prim a ry -jurisdic tion d oc trine did not a pply to a c la im tha t a be ve ra ge la be l m isle d c o nsum e rs into be l ie ving tha t it wa s
m a de or bottle d in Ne w M e xic o). 5. The distric t c ourt from the be nc h de nie d Pla intiffs le a ve t o am e nd. W e
a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly dism isse d the o n-la b e l c la im s r e la te d to c a ffe ine

c onte nt a nd the off-la

be l c la im s, a n d Pla intiffs ha d prior opportunity t o a m e nd both
se ts of c la im s . A distric t c ourt’ s disc re t i o n t o d en y le a ve t o a m e nd i s “ pa rtic ula rly broa d
. . . whe re [, a s he re ] a pla intiff ha s pre v iously be e n gra nte d le a ve to a m e nd a n d fa ils t o a dd the re q

u isite p ar t i c ula

rity to he r c la im s.” Rubk

e v . C apitol Banc orp Ltd. ,

7551 F.3d 1156, 1 167 (9th C ir. 2009). T he re f ore , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny i ng le a ve to a m e nd. * * * Pla intiff Fishe r la c ks sta

nding, a nd t

he re fore the off-la

be l c la i m s do not survive M onste r’ s m o tion to d ism iss. Pla intiffs’ sta te -la w on-la

be l c l a im s tha t se e k to subje c t M onste r to a c a ffe ine -c o nte n t la be ling re quire m e nt a re pre e m pte d by fe de ra l la

w. The
re m a inde r of Pla intiffs’ o n-la be l c la im s a re not p re e m

pte d, a nd the FDA doe s not ha ve prim a ry jurisdic tion ove r suc h

c la im s . AFFIRM ED in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D for fur the r pr oc e e dings c onsiste nt w ith this disposition.

8