In a class action alleging that Snapple products were deceptively labeled, district court judgment is reversed where: 1) defendant waived its express preemption argument; 2) implied field preemption does not apply as neither Congress nor the FDA intended to occupy the fields of food and beverage labeling and juice products; and 3) implied conflict preemption does not apply as there is no FDA policy with which state law could conflict since neither the FDA policy statement nor the FDA’s letter regarding the term “natural” have the force of law required to preempt conflicting state law.
Read Holk v. Snapple Beverage Corp., No. 08-3060
Appellate InformationAppeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Argued June 24, 2009Filed August 12, 2009
JudgesBefore BARRY, SMITH, Circuit Judges and RESTANI, Judge.Opinion SMITH, Circuit Judge.
CounselFor Appellant: Lynne M. Kizis, Daniel Lapinski, Philip A. Tortoreti, Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer.
For Appellee: Van H. Beckwith, Jeffrey A. Lamken, Michael G. Pattillo, Jr., Martin V. Totaro, Baker Botts.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
