LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) - There are no federal questions of law here, a judge has ruled in sending a class action lawsuit over empty space in Starburst packaging back to state court.
Los Angeles federal judge John Walter remanded Bonnie Reyes' case against Mars, Inc., to Los Angeles Superior Court, where it was first filed before the defendant removed it to his court. Walter on Jan. 31 rejected Mars' reasons for doing so.
The suit alleges fraud and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, but Mars argued it involved preemption claims under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
"A state cause of action invokes federal question jurisdiction only if it 'necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities," Walter wrote, citing precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
"In this case, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's state law claims do not necessarily raise a federal issue because Plaintiff also expressly alleges that Defendant’s product packaging does not conform to California’s Sherman Law (which Defendant failed to mention in either its Notice of Removal or its Response)," Walter added.
"California’s Sherman Law 'incorporates all of the food labeling regulations promulgated by the FDA,' and, as a result, 'parallels' the federal requirements, rather than adding to or differing from those federal requirements."
Reyes alleges that Mars sells its popular candy line "Starbursts" in oversized packaging that is mostly filled with air.
Reyes argues that this misleads consumers into paying extra for empty space. The complaint refers to several state and federal court cases involving similar claims that have been found actionable and meritorious.
It also includes pictures illustrating the allegedly deceptive nature of the packaging and the substantial non-functional slack fill inside the package.
Reyes claims she relied on the opaque packaging when making her purchase and was led to believe that the amount of product contained therein was commensurate with the size of the package. She asserts she would not have purchased the product or paid a premium price had she known about the misleading packaging.
Scott Ferrell of Pacific Trial Attorneys represents the plaintiff.