Roffman v. Perfect Bar, LLC
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-02479
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Roffman v. Perfect Bar, Judge Corley denied plaintiffs’ request to seek reconsideration of the order dismissing their labeling claims.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs’ request to seek reconsideration and Perfect Bar, LLC, whose earlier motion to dismiss had been granted.
What happened
In Roffman v. Perfect Bar, LLC, the plaintiffs asked for permission to seek reconsideration of the court’s earlier order granting Perfect Bar’s motion to dismiss. They argued that the court had failed to consider material facts or important legal arguments about whether their food-labeling claims were blocked by federal law.
The court rejected that request. It said the plaintiffs had mischaracterized two cited cases, while the court had already considered and disagreed with the third. The court also reaffirmed that federal food-labeling rules allow a protein figure based on the nitrogen method without a corresponding protein-quality figure and therefore considered the plaintiffs’ theory inconsistent with those rules.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denied the motion and stated that the order disposed of docket entry 36.
The detailed version
- Roffman v. Perfect Bar, LLC · No. 3:22-cv-02479
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Oct. 5, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs moved for leave—permission—to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its September 2, 2022 order granting Perfect Bar’s motion to dismiss. They relied on Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), which concerns a claimed failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented before an interlocutory order.
The challenged issue involved the plaintiffs’ theory that Perfect Bar’s front-label protein claims were misleading because the nutrition facts panel did not include corresponding PDCAAS figures. The plaintiffs based that theory on the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act’s prohibition on false or misleading food labeling and related federal regulations.
Court’s reasoning
The court said the plaintiffs had mischaracterized two of the three district court cases they cited from their original opposition. One case dismissed the theory on reliance grounds, granted leave to amend, and did not address express preemption—the doctrine that federal law displaces a conflicting state-law claim. Another case concluded that a similar theory conflicted with federal law allowing a nitrogen-method protein claim without a corresponding PDCAAS figure. The court had already acknowledged the third case but disagreed with it. The court stated that disagreement with its conclusion was not a basis for reconsideration.
The court further reasoned that federal regulations prohibit misleading labeling but permit a nitrogen-method figure to appear on a nutrition facts panel without other protein information elsewhere on the product. It concluded that treating the figure as misleading would conflict with regulations permitting manufacturers to use it.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. It stated that oral argument was unnecessary and that the order disposed of docket entry 36. The opinion does not state whether any amendment or further proceedings were available after the earlier dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.