Scheibe v. Prosupps USA, LLC

141 F.4th 1094 (9th Cir. 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 23, 2025 · No. 23-3300

Summary

The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a putative class action alleging that ProSupps USA mislabeled its Hydro BCAA dietary supplement under California consumer protection laws. The court held that the plaintiff’s single-sample testing, using FDA-prescribed testing methods but not the FDA’s twelve-sample process, plausibly supported an inference that the product was misbranded under federal law. Accordingly, the state-law claims were not preempted at the pleading stage.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Anthony D. Johnstone; Johnnie B. Rawlinson; Morgan B. Christen
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decision date
June 23, 2025
Docket number
23-3300
Procedural posture
Plaintiff appealed the Southern District of California's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of his putative class action state-law mislabeling claims on the ground that they were preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Standard of review
De novo review of the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Precedential value
Published and precedential Ninth Circuit opinion.
Parties
Jacob Scheibe, on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Prosupps USA, LLC
Disposition
reversed

Topics

consumer protectionfda regulationmotions to dismissfederalismclass actions

Practice areas

consumer protectionfood and drug lawfederal preemptioncivil procedureclass actions

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempts California consumer-protection claims alleging that a dietary supplement is misbranded when the plaintiff's testing used FDA-approved testing methods but did not follow the FDA's twelve-sample sampling process.
  2. Whether, at the pleading stage, a single-sample test may support a reasonable inference that testing a composite sample under the FDA's required sampling process would establish that the product is misbranded under federal law.

Holdings

  1. A plaintiff's failure to plead that nutrition testing followed the FDA's twelve-sample sampling process does not preclude a court from drawing a reasonable inference that a food's label violates the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and therefore does not require dismissal on preemption grounds.

Key quotations

We hold that a plaintiff’s failure to plead nutrition testing according to the FDA’s sampling process does not preclude a court from drawing a reasonable inference that a food’s label violates the Act. (141 F.4th at 1105)
Because Scheibe alleged facts that allow a reasonable inference that the supplement is misbranded under the Act, his complaint survives preemption on a motion to dismiss. (141 F.4th at 1105)

Factual background

ProSupps sold Hydro BCAA, a dietary supplement whose label stated that each serving contained zero grams of carbohydrates and zero calories. Scheibe bought the supplement for weight-loss and muscle-building purposes and had an independent laboratory test a single 100-gram sample using FDA-approved testing methods. The testing found 5.68 grams of carbohydrates and 51 calories per serving, substantially exceeding the FDA's allowable margins for zero-carbohydrate and zero-calorie labeling. Scheibe sued under California consumer-protection laws, although he did not allege that he used the FDA's twelve-sample sampling process.

Procedural history

Scheibe filed a putative class action under the Class Action Fairness Act, alleging that ProSupps's Hydro BCAA dietary supplement falsely stated that it contained zero carbohydrates and zero calories. After Scheibe amended his complaint, ProSupps moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were preempted because Scheibe did not allege compliance with the FDA's twelve-sample testing process. The district court granted the motion, and the Ninth Circuit reversed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…