Roffman v. REBBL, INC.

Background

Mehva Roffman alleges that REBBL, INC. misrepresents the amount of protein in its energy beverages. REBBL previously moved to dismiss, arguing in part that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempted Roffman’s claims. The court previously granted that motion in part because Roffman conceded that one claim was expressly preempted. It denied the motion in part as to other preemption arguments, allowing REBBL to renew those arguments on a more developed record.

REBBL then moved to stay the case under the court’s inherent authority to manage its docket. It asked the court to wait for the Ninth Circuit to decide three appeals involving preemption issues raised by REBBL. The court noted that those appeals concerned related protein-labeling claims and could provide guidance on two of Roffman’s three theories of liability.

Reasons for the Stay

The court considered three factors. First, Roffman argued that a stay could harm her and the proposed class because evidence might be lost. The court found that she identified no concrete examples of testimony or documents that could disappear. Roffman also sought prospective injunctive relief and argued that continuing harm could occur without an injunction, but she had not moved for a preliminary injunction. The court concluded that this factor weighed only slightly against a stay.

Second, Roffman argued that a stay would impose hardship on her and the proposed class. REBBL argued that proceeding could require it to incur litigation expenses and duplicate discovery and motion practice. The court concluded that this factor also weighed slightly against a stay because the ordinary burden of defending a lawsuit, without more, was not enough to establish clear hardship or inequity.

Third, the court considered whether a stay would simplify or complicate the issues, evidence, and legal questions. Although the appeals would not resolve every theory of liability, the court found that their decisions would provide guidance on two of Roffman’s three theories. The court also noted that the Ninth Circuit states that most cases are decided within three months to one year after submission.

Disposition

The court granted REBBL’s motion to stay. The parties must file status reports about the Ninth Circuit proceedings every 180 days, beginning December 21, 2023. The order does not prevent either party from asking to lift the stay before the appeals are resolved.

In light of the stay, Judge Jeffrey White denied REBBL’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. REBBL may renew that motion after the stay is lifted. This order did not decide the underlying merits of Roffman’s remaining claims.