GoodCat, LLC v. Cook
| Decision Date | 19 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | 1:16-cv-01514-RLY-DML |
| Citation | 202 F.Supp.3d 896 |
| Parties | GOODCAT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. David COOK, David Coleman, Dale Grubb, and Marjorie Maginn, in their official capacities for the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission; and the State of Indiana, Defendants. Cloudtown, LLC, DB Vapes, LLC, DNM Ventures, LLC, Vapor Bank E-Liquid, LLC, Licensed E-Liquid Manufacturing LLC, and VapeINg, LLC, Intervenors. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
Eric N. Heyer, Neelam Gill, Thompson Hine LLP, Washington, DC, Jenai M. Brackett, Nicholas C. Pappas, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiff.
David A. Arthur, Jonathan Paul Nagy, Joshua Robert Lowry, Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants.
Christopher J. Bayh, Mark Jason Crandley, Peter J. Rusthoven, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Intervenors.
GoodCat LLC, the Plaintiff, challenges the constitutionality of certain requirements that Indiana Code § 7.1-7–1 et seq. (the "Indiana Act" or the "Act") imposes on manufacturers of electronic vapor liquids ("e-liquids") who wish to sell their products in Indiana. Effective July 1, 2016, any manufacturer of e-liquids destined for sale or distribution in Indiana must have a manufacturing permit issued by the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission ("ATC"). On June 20, the ATC rejected GoodCat's permit application. That same day, GoodCat filed this lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order ("TRO") and a preliminary injunction against Defendants, Commissioners of the ATC and the State of Indiana, enjoining the ATC from enforcing certain provisions against GoodCat. Other manufacturers of e-liquids, Cloudtown LLC, et al. (collectively, "Intervenors"), subsequently requested to intervene in this action to oppose GoodCat's challenges to the Act. On June 30, the statutory deadline for the ATC to issue permits, the court granted GoodCat's request for a TRO and ordered the ATC to issue GoodCat a provisional manufacturing permit.
Also on June 30, this court issued an opinion in a related case, Legato Vapors LLC v. Cook , No. 1:15–cv–761, 193 F.Supp.3d 952, 2016 WL 3548658 (S.D.Ind. June 30, 2016). In that case, the plaintiffs challenged the Act on several constitutional grounds, including the dormant Commerce Clause, the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Indiana Constitution's Privileges and Immunities Clause. The court rejected each of the plaintiffs' arguments and granted summary judgment in favor of the State. GoodCat, unlike the plaintiffs in Legato Vapors , challenges only a narrow group of provisions—commonly known as the "security requirements"—on legal theories not squarely before the court in Legato Vapors . The court, therefore, confines the scope of its consideration in this matter to issues not raised in Legato Vapors .
On July 11, the court held a preliminary injunction hearing. GoodCat, Defendants, and Intervenors appeared by counsel. Having considered GoodCat's Verified Complaint, the parties' briefs in support of and opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction, and evidence and argument of counsel at the hearing, the court now issues the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
1. E-liquids typically contain nicotine, flavorings, propylene glycol, and/or vegetable glycerin. The nicotine concentrations and flavor combinations vary widely among e-liquids. (Stipulated Facts ¶¶ 2, 4).
2. Electronic nicotine delivery devices (or "ENDS"), including electronic cigarettes, heat and aerosolize e-liquids. Once the device aerosolizes the e-liquid, the user of the device inhales the vapor through a mouthpiece. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 3).
3. Since 2009, GoodCat has manufactured e-liquids from its manufacturing facility in Naples, Florida. (Filing No. 46 ("Hr'g Tr.") at 53:16–54:5).
4. GoodCat has forty employees, including nine degreed scientists, and the capacity to produce up to 3 million bottles a month and approximately 100 metric tons of e-liquid products per year. (Id. at 54:6–15, 55:8–11, 57:15–18).
5. GoodCat produces e-liquid products for approximately 104 brands with approximately 20,000 unique products, or "SKUs." (Id. at 56:15–23). In addition to shipping bottled e-liquids, approximately 20 to 25 percent of its sales consists of stock, or "white label," e-liquids sold by the barrel to other distributors or smaller retailers who wish to bottle their own products. (Id. at 87:11–88:10). GoodCat's products are sold through convenience stores, big box stores, and so-called vape shops in Indiana.2 (Id. at 56:8–14). It is estimated that approximately 200 retail outlets in Indiana sell GoodCat's products. (Id. at 56:21–23).
6. Raymond Keller founded GoodCat and currently serves as the company's president. Mr. Keller has a degree in biology and a background in nuclear engineering. Mr. Keller built GoodCat's production facility to implement stringent security measures similar to those he experienced in the nuclear industry. (Id . at 52:24–53:1, 92:19–93:3).
7. GoodCat uses keycard locks on all doors at its manufacturing facility to limit access to authorized personnel. A security computer records who enters or exits each door at GoodCat's facility, including the date and time. GoodCat also has a sophisticated, real-time surveillance system consisting of sixty-four camera views of the facility. (Id. at 62:12–64:6).
8. GoodCat does not have a physical presence in Indiana. (Id. at 54:2–3).
9. Since 2009, GoodCat has been registered as a tobacco product establishment with the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). GoodCat has filed each of its product formulations with the FDA. (Id. at 64:17–65:1).
10. In 2009, Congress enacted the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act ("TCA"), codified at 21 U.S.C. § 387 et seq. , to grant the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") authority to regulate tobacco products under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act ("FDCA"), 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.See 21 U.S.C. § 387a(a).
11. The TCA extends the FDA's authority to regulate "all cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco and to any other tobacco products that the [FDA] by regulation deems to be subject to [the TCA]." Id. § 387a(b).
12. The TCA established certain regulations, such as "annual registration" and "premarket review" requirements, see id. §§ 387e and 387j, and gives the FDA the authority to promulgate further regulations in certain areas, such as for manufacturing standards. Id. § 387f(e).
13. On May 10, 2016, the FDA exercised its authority under § 387a(b) to promulgate what is known as its "Deeming Rule," by which the FDA deems e-liquid a "tobacco product" and therefore subject to regulation as such under the FDCA. See Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the FDCA , 81 Fed. Reg. 28,974 (May 10, 2016). The Deeming Rule takes effect on August 8, 2016. Id.
14. As a consequence of the Deeming Rule, which took effect on August 8, 2016, the FDCA's requirements concerning manufacturer and product registration, submission of ingredient listings, marketing, and premarket review applies to e-liquids. Id. at 28,976.
15. The Deeming Rule also established three new regulations governing the sale of e-liquids: (1) prohibitions on sales to persons under 18 years of age; (2) requirements that packages bear health warnings; and (3) prohibitions on vending machine sales. Id.
16. Although the FDA has had authority to promulgate regulations since 2009, it has not promulgated regulations concerning good manufacturing standards.
17. With respect to tobacco products, the FDCA specifically addresses preservation and preemption in Section 916 of the TCA, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 387p(a). That section, in pertinent part, provides as follows:
21 U.S.C. § 387p(a).
18. During its 2015 legislative session, the Indiana General Assembly enacted Indiana Public Law 176–2015, Indiana Public Law 214–2016 and codified at Indiana Code § 7.1-7–1 et seq. The Act imposes a comprehensive regulatory and permitting scheme on the manufacture of e-liquids for use in electronic cigarettes and other vaping devices. It applies to (1) "[t]he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Juul Labs, Inc., Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig.
...preemption of state law standards that are "different from or in addition to" the federal ones. See, e.g., GoodCat, LLC v. Cook , 202 F. Supp. 3d 896, 912 (S.D. Ind. 2016) ("the clause does not operate unless the FDA regulates the adulteration of tobacco products"). Express preemption does ......
-
Legato Vapors, LLC v. Cook
...satisfied the criteria of the Indiana Act and has the approval of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission. GoodCat, LLC v. Cook , 202 F.Supp.3d 896, 904 – 05 (S.D.Ind. 2016). In fact, prior to an amendment to the bill that became the Act, not even that favored company would have met the ......
-
People v. JUUL Labs.
...are 'different from or in addition to' the federal ones" (In re JUUL Labs, Inc., 497 F.Supp.3d at 587; see also GoodCat, LLC v Cook, 202 F.Supp.3d 896, 912 [SD Ind 2016] ["the clause does not operate unless the FDA regulates the adulteration of tobacco products"]; Minnesota, 2021 WL 2692131......
-
Minerva Dairy, Inc. v. Brancel, 17-cv-299-jdp
...marriage status confers" because Indiana refused to recognize her out-of-state same-sex marriage). But see GoodCat, LLC v. Cook, 202 F. Supp. 3d 896, 918 (S.D. Ind. 2016) (concluding, without analysis, that plaintiff's Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause challenges to Indiana's e-cigaret......