Hernandez v. Mimi's Rock Corp.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:21-cv-04065
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Hernandez v. DTI GmbH, Judge Tigar denied Hernandez leave to seek partial reconsideration because he raised a regulation belatedly and showed no qualifying error.
Alfredo Hernandez and DTI GmbH; the order concerned Hernandez’s request to seek reconsideration of the dismissal of his ingredient-labeling claim.
What happened
In Hernandez v. DTI GmbH, Alfredo Hernandez asked for permission to file a motion seeking partial reconsideration of the court’s August 26, 2024 order. That earlier order dismissed his claim that DTI improperly labeled certain omega-3 ingredients, including EPA and DHA, on its product.
The court said reconsideration generally requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, or a change in controlling law. Hernandez relied for the first time on a federal regulation in arguing that DTI had to list EPA and DHA by their common or usual names. The court found that he could have raised the regulation earlier and had not shown the required failure by the court to consider facts or legal arguments previously presented.
The court denied Hernandez’s motion for leave to file a motion for partial reconsideration. Judge Jon S. Tigar also explained that, even if he considered the late argument, the regulation Hernandez cited did not apply because the complaint described EPA and DHA as constituent ingredients, which the applicable regulation said may be listed rather than requiring their listing.
The detailed version
- Hernandez v. Mimi's Rock Corp. · No. 4:21-cv-04065
- Jon Tigar
- Sept. 25, 2024
Background
Alfredo Hernandez moved for leave, meaning permission, to file a motion for partial reconsideration of the court’s August 26, 2024 interlocutory order. That earlier order dismissed Hernandez’s claim that DTI GmbH breached an obligation to describe ingredients by their common or usual names by identifying omega-3 fatty acids—eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)—as EPA and DHA on its product.
Why the Court Denied Leave
The court explained that it may reconsider an interlocutory order before entering final judgment, but reconsideration is generally appropriate only when there is newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. Under the district’s local rules, the moving party must also show reasonable diligence and rely on an enumerated ground, including a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented.
Hernandez relied on 21 C.F.R. § 101.36(b)(3)(i) for the first time in seeking reconsideration. He acknowledged that he had not cited that subsection in his complaint, and the court found that he also failed to cite it in opposing DTI’s motion to dismiss, even though DTI had argued about a different subsection of the same regulation. The court therefore concluded that Hernandez could have presented the authority earlier and that his lack of reasonable diligence independently required denial of leave.
Alternative Analysis
The court added that it would not reconsider the earlier order even if it considered Hernandez’s late argument. Section 101.36(b)(3)(i) applies to certain dietary ingredients that are not subject to another regulatory provision. Based on the allegations in Hernandez’s complaint, the court found that EPA and DHA were constituent ingredients of dietary ingredients, rather than stand-alone dietary ingredients. The court concluded that 21 C.F.R. § 101.36(b)(3)(iii), the provision cited in the earlier order, applied instead. That provision states that constituents of a dietary ingredient may be listed, so it did not require DTI to list them.
Disposition
The court denied Hernandez’s motion for leave to file a motion for partial reconsideration. The order did not grant leave or alter the earlier dismissal. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.