State of Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 111716 FED9, 14-17111

Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Attorney:J. Andrew Hirth (argued), Deputy General Counsel, Office of the Missouri Attorney General, Jefferson City, Missouri, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Paul Stein (argued) and Stephanie F. Zook, Deputy Attorneys General; Constance L. LeLouis, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Woods, Senior ...
Judge Panel:Before: Susan P. Graber and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges, and Raner C. Collins, Chief District Judge.
Opinion Judge:GRABER, Circuit Judge
Party Name:State of Missouri ex rel. Chris Koster, Attorney General; State of Nebraska ex rel. Jon Bruning, Attorney General; State of Oklahoma ex rel. E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General; State of Alabama ex rel. Luther Strange, Attorney General; Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel. Jack Conway, Attorney General; Terry E. Branstad, Governor of State of Iowa, ...
Case Date:November 17, 2016
Docket Nº:14-17111
 
FREE EXCERPT

State of Missouri ex rel. Chris Koster, Attorney General; State of Nebraska ex rel. Jon Bruning, Attorney General; State of Oklahoma ex rel. E. Scott Pruitt, Attorney General; State of Alabama ex rel. Luther Strange, Attorney General; Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel. Jack Conway, Attorney General; Terry E. Branstad, Governor of State of Iowa, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Kamala D. Harris, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California; Karen Ross, in her official capacity as Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Defendants-Appellees,

and

Humane Society of the United States; Association of California Egg Farmers, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-17111

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 17, 2016

          Argued and Submitted October 19, 2016 San Francisco, California

          Amended January 17, 2017

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, No. 2:14-cv-00341-KJM-KJN Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

          J. Andrew Hirth (argued), Deputy General Counsel, Office of the Missouri Attorney General, Jefferson City, Missouri, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

          Paul Stein (argued) and Stephanie F. Zook, Deputy Attorneys General; Constance L. LeLouis, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; Douglas J. Woods, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, California; for Defendants-Appellees.

          Bruce Wagman (argued), Schiff Hardin LLP, San Francisco, California; Rebecca Cary and Peter A. Brandt, Humane Society of the United States, Washington, D.C.; Jonathan Y. Ellis and J. Scott Ballenger, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C.; for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee Humane Society of the United States.

          Carl Nichols (argued), Thomas G. Sprankling, Adam I. Klein, and Francesco Valenti, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.; Randall R. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee Association of California Egg Farmers.

          Sean D. Reyes, Utah Attorney General; Parker Douglas, Utah Federal Solicitor; Utah Attorney General's Office, Salt Lake City, Utah; for Amicus Curiae State of Utah.

          Timothy S. Bishop, Michael B. Kimberly, and James F. Tierney, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C.; Ellen B. Steen and Danielle Hallcom Quist, America Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae American Farm Bureau Federation.

          Diane L. McGimsey, Edward E. Johnson, Janet Y. Galeria, and Jonathon D. Townsend, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Amici Curiae Animal Legal Defense Fund; Compassion Over Killing, Inc.; and Farm Sanctuary, Inc.

          Before: Susan P. Graber and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges, and Raner C. Collins, [*] Chief District Judge.

         ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION

         SUMMARY[**]

         Civil Rights

         The panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action for lack of parens patriae standing but remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice.

         Plaintiffs are six states seeking to block enforcement of California laws and regulations prescribing standards for the conditions under which chickens must be kept in order for their eggs to be sold in the state. Plaintiffs sought to block the laws before they took effect. The panel held that the plaintiffs failed to establish parens patriae standing because: (1) they failed to articulate an interest apart from the interests of private egg producers, who could have filed an action on their own behalf; (2) the allegations about potential economic effects of the challenged laws, after implementation, were necessarily speculative; and (3) the allegations of discrimination were misplaced because the laws do not distinguish among eggs based on their state of origin. The panel further held that the district court did not err by denying leave to amend because plaintiffs would be unable to assert parens patriae standing in an amended complaint.

         The panel held that because in theory, plaintiffs could allege post-effective-date facts that might support standing, the complaint should have been dismissed without prejudice.

         ORDER

         The opinion filed November 17, 2016, and published at 842 F.3d 658, is amended by the opinion filed concurrently with this order. No further petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc may be filed.

          OPINION

          GRABER, Circuit Judge

         California enacted laws and regulations prescribing standards for the conditions under which chickens must be kept in order for their eggs to be sold in the state. Plaintiffs are six states, which sued to block enforcement of those laws and regulations before they took effect. We agree with the district court that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this case as parens patriae. We also hold that the district court did not err in denying Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. But because the action should have been dismissed without prejudice, we affirm but remand with instructions to dismiss the action without prejudice.

         In the 2008 general election, California voters adopted Proposition 2, which enacted new standards beginning on January 1, 2015, for housing farm animals within California including, as relevant here, egg-laying hens. Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25990-94. Under Proposition 2, hens may not be confined for the majority of any day "in a manner that prevents [them] from: (a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending [their] limbs; and (b) Turning around freely." Id. § 25990. A violation of these standards is punishable by a $1, 000 fine or imprisonment of 180 days in county jail, or both. Id. § 25993.

         In 2010, California's legislature adopted Assembly Bill 1437 ("AB1437"), which mandated, also beginning on January 1, 2015, that "a shelled egg shall not be sold or contracted for sale for human consumption in California if the seller knows or should have known that the egg is the product of an egg-laying hen that was confined on a farm or place that is not in compliance with animal care standards set forth in [Proposition 2]." Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25996. Therefore, all eggs sold in California must comply with Proposition 2. In 2013, the California Department of Food and Agriculture promulgated egg-related regulations, including salmonella prevention measures and minimum cage sizes for egg-laying hens, all of which also carried an effective date of January 1, 2015. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 3, § 1350(d)(1).

         On February 3, 2014, the State of Missouri filed a complaint in ...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR FREE TRIAL