Monster Beverage’s Challenge to S.F. Attorney Investigation Dismissed

A federal court in California has dismissed, without prejudice, the action
for declaratory and injunctive relief brought against the San Francisco city
attorney, seeking to halt his investigation of Monster Beverage’s energy
drinks and efforts to regulate their formulation, labeling and promotion.
Monster Beverage Corp. v. Herrera, No. 13-0786 (C.D. Cal., decided
December 16, 2013). Additional information about the lawsuit appears in
Issue 482 of this Update. The matter was before the court on the city attorney’s
renewed motion to dismiss.

Essentially, the court determined that the Younger abstention doctrine, which
“counsels federal-court abstention when there is a pending state proceeding,”
applied because a state action brought by the city attorney is pending, the
action implicates important state interests, not all of the city attorney’s claims
are preempted under federal food-labeling laws, and the state proceedings
will be adequate for the consideration of Monster’s constitutional claims.
Details about the city attorney’s lawsuit appear in Issue 483 of this Update.
While Monster’s lawsuit was filed before the city attorney filed his action, the
court determined that the “state action” was filed before the court issued an
order in August 2013 granting in part and denying in part the city’s motion
to dismiss the Monster action. Details about that ruling appear in Issue 496 of
this Update.

In August, the court refused to apply the Younger abstention doctrine
because Monster had removed the city attorney’s lawsuit to federal court. A
motion for remand was pending at that point, and the court indicated that
it could determine whether the doctrine applied if the motion were granted.
The city attorney’s case was subsequently remanded to state court.

The court also applied the Anti-Injunction Act, finding that issuance of
injunctive relief to halt the city attorney’s investigation would effectively stay
proceedings in a state court, noting “even if the Act does not apply when a
request for a federal injunction is made before the state court proceedings are
filed, the Court would exercise its discretion in light of the principles of equity,
comity and federalism and refrain from granting an injunction that would
effectively enjoin the state court proceeding.”

Issue 508