Supreme Court grants review in UCL preemption case: Farm Raised Salmon Cases

On December 13, 2006, the California Supreme Court granted review in Farm Raised Salmon Cases, no. S147171. The case raises the following issue:

Does the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.) impliedly preempt plaintiffs’ state law claims against defendants for deceptive marketing of food products by failing to disclose that farmed salmon sold in their stores contains artificial coloring?

My original post on the Court of Appeal's opinion, Farm Raised Salmon Cases, 142 Cal.App.4th 805 (2006), is here. As the post points out, the underlying state-law claims included UCL and CLRA claims.

Query: The Court of Appeal's opinion in In re Tobacco II Cases includes the "In re" prefix, but the Court of Appeal's opinion in Farm Raised Salmon Cases does not. Why?