Down The Rabbit Hole: Primary Jurisdiction Redux

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'"

While perhaps not as far down the rabbit hole as Alice was, the Courts within the Northern District of California are decidedly split on whether to use the primary jurisdiction doctrine to stay food cases with "natural" claims.  The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows a court to stay or dismiss a case pending the resolution of an issue within the special competence of an administrative agency, such as FDA.  As discussed in this blog before, in July 2013 Judge Gonzalez Rogers invoked the doctrine, stayed a case for six months, and referred the matter to FDA for an administrative determination of whether and under what circumstances GMO-containing food products may or may not be labeled "natural."  Her decision acknowledged FDA's non-binding guidance somewhat loosely defining and setting a policy for use of the term "natural," but