In her putative class action complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the tasty coating placed on sunflower seed shells is intended to be ingested – and is ingested – before the inedible shell is spat out and the kernel eaten; that is what is expected before expectoration. Therefore, the sodium content in a “serving” of sunflower seeds, as stated on the package, must include the sodium contained in the edible coating.
Taking those allegations as true for the purposes of a motion to dismiss, we hold today that the sodium content of the edible coating added to sunflower seed shells must, under federal law, be included in the nutritional information disclosed on a package of sunflower seeds. Because plaintiff’s state-law claims, if successful, would impose no greater burden than those imposed by federal law, her state law claims are not preempted. We reverse the granting of the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Judge(s): Barry G. Silverman
Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Related Categories: Administrative Law , Conflict of Laws
|Circuit Court Judge(s)|
|Trial Court Judge(s)|
|Plaintiff Lawyer(s)||Plaintiff Law Firm(s)|
|Rosemary Rivas||Finkelstein Thompson LLP|
|Danielle Stoumbos||Finkelstein Thompson LLP|
|Defendant Lawyer(s)||Defendant Law Firm(s)|
|Patrick Brookhouser, Jr.||McGrath North Mullin & Kratz PC LLO|
|Lauren Goodman||McGrath North Mullin & Kratz PC LLO|
|Noah Priluck||McGrath North Mullin & Kratz PC LLO|