Allen v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.

Background

The plaintiff classes sought to hold Conagra Brands, Inc., formerly known as ConAgra Foods, Inc., liable under state law for allegedly false and misleading labeling of Parkay Spray. They claimed the product used artificially small serving sizes to disguise its fat and calorie content.

After earlier class-certification and jurisdictional rulings, Erin Allen remained as the named plaintiff. The order states that she pursued claims for fraud by concealment, breach of express warranty, intentional misrepresentation, violation of California’s False Advertising Law, violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and unjust enrichment. A California-and-Hawaii subclass pursued claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and Hawaii’s Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Trade Practices Act. The order states that the Hawaii consumers’ claims sought only injunctive relief.

Conagra argued that Parkay Spray belonged in the federal regulatory category for “Fats and Oils: Spray types,” which has a reference amount of 0.25 grams. The plaintiffs argued that it belonged in the “Fats and Oils: Butter, margarine, oil, shortening” category, which has a reference amount of one tablespoon. The plaintiffs argued that Conagra marketed Parkay Spray as an alternative to butter and that consumers used it as a buttery topping.

Summary judgment and preemption

Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court held that the plaintiffs’ claims were preempted. Federal law expressly preempts state food-labeling requirements that are not identical to federal nutrition-labeling requirements. The court focused on whether Parkay Spray could be treated as a substitute for butter or margarine under the federal regulations.

The court found that the record did not support placing Parkay Spray in the butter-and-margarine category. It relied in part on the plaintiffs’ expert’s evidence that Parkay Spray differed from butter and margarine in physical characteristics, fat content, color, texture, and usefulness in food preparation. The court also cited evidence that Parkay Spray was unsuitable or a poor choice for baking, sautéing, and other uses associated with the butter, margarine, oil, and shortening category.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Parkay Spray could qualify as a substitute for a substitute for butter or margarine. It also rejected the argument that Conagra had to prove Parkay Spray was equivalent to a cooking spray such as Pam. The relevant federal category was the broader spray-type fats-and-oils category.

The court concluded that Parkay Spray could not be used interchangeably with butter or margarine on this record. It therefore held that the plaintiffs sought to enforce state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal requirements. Because Conagra was entitled to summary judgment on preemption, the court did not address Conagra’s remaining substantive arguments.

Other rulings and disposition

The court granted Conagra’s motion for summary judgment. Judgment was to be entered accordingly. The court denied Conagra’s motion to decertify, denied Conagra’s motion to exclude the testimony of expert Annette W. Hottenstein, and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment.

The court denied all pending motions to seal without prejudice. It gave Conagra guidance for any renewed sealing motion, including narrowing redactions, not sealing consumer complaints themselves, not sealing business documents more than ten years old, and providing detailed support for claimed confidential information. Any renewed motion was required to be filed within 30 days.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ request concerning Dkt. No. 299-1. That filing, which the plaintiffs had inadvertently submitted without redactions, was to be permanently restricted and was not considered part of the docket.