State Law Claims Are Not Preempted If They “Would Impose No Greater Burden Than Those Imposed By Federal Law.”

In a class action complaint, pleading violations of California’s consumer protection statutes, filed in federal court, plaintiff alleged the coating on sunflower seeds contained salt and that salt coating was not included in the sodium content per serving listed on the package. The district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Ninth Circuit reversed, stating: “The sodium content of the edible coating added to sunflower seed shells must, under federal law, be included in the nutritional information disclosed on a package of sunflower seeds. Because plaintiff’s state-law claims, if successful, would impose no greater burden than those imposed by federal law, her state law claims are not preempted.” (Lilly v. Conagra Foods, Inc. (Ninth Cir.; February 20, 2014) 743 F.3d 662.)