## Facts

- Riviana Foods, Inc. sold dry pasta products labeled “All Natural.”
- Jason Scholder bought the pasta in New York and alleged the products contained trace amounts of a synthetic herbicide (glyphosate).
- Scholder filed a putative class action in the Eastern District of New York asserting claims under New York consumer-protection law, including N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349 and 350, and related state-law theories.
- The FDA had not adopted a binding regulatory definition of “natural” for human food labels.
- Existing FDA guidance stated that “natural” generally means nothing artificial or synthetic has been added that would not normally be expected in the food, and that the term was not meant to address pesticide use during agricultural production.
- During litigation in multiple cases about “natural” labeling (including disputes involving bioengineered ingredients), the FDA opened a public docket and began a rulemaking process seeking comments on whether and how to define “natural” for human-food labeling.
- In that process, the FDA asked for comments on topics including whether “natural” should cover agricultural production practices (such as pesticide use), whether it should cover manufacturing methods, and whether consumers link “natural” with “healthy” or “organic.”
- While the FDA process remained ongoing, Riviana moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that its labeling matched the FDA’s existing guidance and therefore defeated liability under New York law.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine and stay the case pending completion of the FDA’s ongoing process on the meaning and permitted use of “natural” in food labeling.
2. Whether the court should reach the merits of Riviana’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion while the FDA was actively considering questions that overlapped with the lawsuit, including whether “natural” should account for pesticide use.

## Decision

- The court stayed the action under the primary jurisdiction doctrine pending the outcome of the FDA’s rulemaking process on the permissible uses of the term “natural” in food labeling.
- The court denied Riviana’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and with leave to renew after the stay is lifted, expressly declining to reach the merits of the Rule 12(b)(6) arguments at that time.
- The court denied as moot related motions (including a motion to stay discovery and a motion to strike supplemental papers) in light of the stay.

## Legal Principles

- Primary jurisdiction allows a federal court to pause a case when resolving the dispute calls for administrative decisionmaking on issues committed to an agency and where consistent national treatment matters.
- A stay (rather than dismissal) is a common remedy when an agency is already conducting a formal process that may materially affect the legal or factual questions in the case.
- When the FDA is actively considering whether and how to define a labeling term used nationwide, courts may avoid issuing rulings that could conflict with, or be overtaken by, agency action.
- Even at the pleading stage, a court may decline to decide a motion to dismiss where the dispute turns on technical questions and policy choices that the FDA is in the process of addressing through notice-and-comment proceedings.
- A party’s reliance on informal FDA guidance may not end the case when the agency is reevaluating the same subject through an ongoing rulemaking process.

## Conclusion

In *Scholder v. Riviana Foods, Inc.*, the Eastern District of New York stayed a putative class action alleging that “All Natural” pasta labeling was misleading because the products contained trace glyphosate, reasoning that the FDA’s ongoing rulemaking on the meaning and permitted use of “natural” for human-food labels warranted deferring judicial action; the court denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice and placed the case on hold pending further FDA action.


Scholder v. Riviana Foods, Inc., 2017 WL 2773586 (2017)