Lockwood v. Conagra Foods, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that claims based on allegedly misleading description of food product as “all 6 natural” were not expressly preempted by FDCA or NLEA
• declining to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine in false advertising case concerning definition and deceptive use of the term “natural”
• “NLEA—including the savings clause (no preemption unless the law is expressly 19 preempted)—shall not be construed to affect preemption of food safety laws.”
• “NLEA—including the savings clause (no preemption unless the law is expressly 19 preempted)—shall not be construed to affect preemption of food safety laws.”
• finding a claim of misleading pasta sauce labeling “not a technical area in which the FDA has greater technical expertise than the courts — every day courts decide whether conduct is misleading.”
• refusing to strike class allegations on defendant’s argument that a class could not be certified as a matter of law. The court would consider the issues “on a fully-briefed and supported motion concerning class certification.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).