Iowa Pork Producers Ass'n v. Bonta
| Decision Date | 28 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2:21-cv-09940-CAS (AFMx) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
| Parties | Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Rob Bonta et al. |
On November 9, 2021, plaintiff Iowa Pork Producers Association ("Iowa Pork") filed suit in Fresno Superior Court against Rob Bonta, the Attorney General of California, Karen Ross, the Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture ("CDFA"), and Tomas Aragon, the Director of the California Department of Public Health ("CDPH") (collectively, "defendants"). Dkt. 1. Iowa Pork challenges the constitutionality and seeks to prevent the enforcement of California Health & Safety Code § 25990, et seq., which California voters amended through the passage of Proposition 12 on November 6, 2018 ("Proposition 12"). Proposition 12 prohibits the sale of "whole pork meat" from a "covered animal" that was confined in a "cruel manner," or is the immediate offspring of a covered animal that was confined in a cruel manner. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25900. The statute defines "confined in a cruel manner" to include confining any covered animal in a manner that "prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending the animal's limbs, or turning around freely," or "[a]fter December 31, 2021, confining a breeding pig with less than 24 square feet of useable floorspace per pig." Li at § 25901.
On November 16, 2021, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Dkt. 1. On December 16, 2021, plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint. Dkt. 23 ("FAC"). Plaintiffs FAC asserts claims for: (1) violation of the Due Process Clause (facial and applied challenge); (2) violation of the Due Process Clause for failure to provide notice of the compliance requirements to those subject to Proposition 12 by September 1, 2019; (3) violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause; (4) preemption by the Packers and Stockyards Act under the Supremacy Clause; (5) violation of the dormant Commerce Clause; and (6) declaratory relief pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. P. § 1060. FAC ¶¶ 125-230.
On December 16, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and alternative motion for a temporary restraining order. Dkt. 24-1 ("PI Mot."). On December 27, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, the Hon. Dale A. Drozd presiding, issued an order granting plaintiffs request to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Dkt. 28. On December 28, 2021, the case was assigned to this Court, given that it presides over the related case North American Meat Institute v. Xavier Becerra et ah Case No. 2:19-cv-08569-CAS-FFM. Dkt. 39.
On January 3, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Dkt. 51 ("MTD"). On January 4, 2022, the Court set the hearings on plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction and defendants' motion to dismiss for February 28, 2022. Dkt. 56. On January 31, 2022, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. Dkt. 70 ("Opp."). On February 14, 2022, defendants filed a reply. Dkt. 78 ("Reply").
On February 28, 2022, the Court held a hearing.[1] Having carefully considered the parties' arguments and submissions, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
In the November 2008 election, California voters passed Proposition 2, a ballot initiative intended to "prohibit the cruel confinement of farm animals." FAC ¶ 6. See Cal. Prop. 2 at § 2, as approved by voters (Gen. Elec. Nov. 4, 2008). Proposition 2 added §§ 25990-25994 to the California Health and Safety Code, and took effect on January 1, 2015. See Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25990-25994. The enacted provisions prohibit California farmers from tethering or confining pregnant pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens in a way that prevented them from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely. Id. at §§ 25990, 25991(b). Out-of-state pork producers were not subject to these requirements. Id. at § 25990(a).
Proposition 2 gave California producers over six years to comply with these confinement requirements, with an effective date of January 1, 2015. See id. at § 25990.
The California legislature subsequently enacted Assembly Bill 1437 ("AB 1437") in 2010. FAC ¶ 65. AB 1437 added §§ 25995-97 to the Health and Safety Code. These provisions prohibit selling eggs in California that are produced by hens confined under conditions that do not meet the confinement requirements of Proposition 2. See Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25995-97. AB 1437 did not apply to calves raised for veal or to breeding pigs.
A coalition of states challenged AB 1437 's sales ban pursuant to the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, but their action was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. See Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2017). The states then attempted to petition the Supreme Court pursuant to its original jurisdiction over disputes between states, see U.S. Const., Art. Ill. § 2, but were denied. See Missouri v. California, No. 22-0-148 (filed U.S. Dec. 4, 2017).
In the November 2018 election, California voters passed Proposition 12 to amend §§ 25990-93 of the California Health and Safety Code by adding § 25993.1. FAC 1 7. See Cal. Prop. 12 at § 1, as approved by voters (Gen. Elec. Nov. 6, 2018).
Proposition 12 prohibits the sale in California of "whole pork meat" that a seller "knows or should know is the meat of a covered animal who was confined in a cruel manner, or is the meat of the immediate offspring of a covered animal that was confined in a cruel manner." FAC ¶ 16-21; Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25990(b)(2). Confinement in a cruel manner refers to confining an animal in a manner that does not allow the animal to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, or fully extend their limbs (the "Turn Around Requirements"), and also, as of January 1, 2022, to confining a breeding pig in a space with less than twenty-four square feet of usable floorspace per pig (the "Square Footage Requirements"). Id. at §§ 25990(a); 25991(e).
The prohibition deems that a sale occurs in California "where the buyer takes physical possession" of the meat at issue in California. Id. at § 2599 l(o). Any person who violates Proposition 12's sales prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1, 000 and up to 180 days imprisonment. Id. at § 25993(b). Moreover, violating Proposition 12 constitutes unfair competition, as defined by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25993(b).
Whereas Proposition 2 allowed in-state producers six years to comply with the Turn Around Requirements, the Turn Around Requirements imposed on out-of-state producers by Proposition 12 went into effect on December 19, 2018, six weeks after it was passed. FAC ¶ 7.
According to the ballot language, Proposition 12 is intended "to prevent animal cruelty by phasing out extreme methods of farm animal confinement, which also threaten the health and safety of California consumers, and increase the risk of foodborne illness and associated negative fiscal impacts on the State of California." See Cal. Prop. 12 at § 1, as approved by voters (Gen. Elec. Nov. 6, 2018).
The State has yet to issue final regulations implementing Proposition 12 (the "Final Regulations") despite the statutory language stating that "[t]he Department of Food and Agriculture and the State Department of Public Health shall jointly promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation of this act by September 1, 2019." Id. at § 25993.[2]
On March 5, 2021, the CDFA issued FAQs that stated that pork meat not in compliance with the Square Footage Requirements, but already in inventory or in commerce by December 31, 2021, will remain legal to sell in California. See CDFA AHFSS Animal Care Program Prop 12 FAQ, (March 5, 2021), https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/AHFSS/pdfs/Prop 12 FAQ March 2021.pdf ("Prop. 12 FAQs"). Plaintiff notes that the Prop. 12 FAQs do not provide any relief to pork producers who are not in compliance with the Turn Around Requirements. FAC ¶¶ 56-57.
On October 4, 2019, the North American Meat Institute, a national trade association of meat packers and processors, filed suit to challenge the constitutionality and prevent the enforcement of Proposition 12. Their motion for a preliminary injunction was denied by this Court on November 22, 2019, and the denial was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit on October 15, 2020. See N. Am. Meat Inst, v. Becerra, 420 F.Supp.3d 1014, 1017 (CD. Cal. 2019), affd. 825 Fed.Appx. 518 (9th Cir. 2020). The Supreme Court denied NAMFs petition for writ of certiorari on June 28, 2021. See N. Am. Meat Inst, v. Bonta. 141 S.Ct. 2854 (2021).[3]
Plaintiff filed suit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 12, and seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, on November 9, 2021. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff is a trade association that represents Iowa pork producers. FAC *f 26. Iowa is the leading pork producing state in the United States, and is also the leading state for pork exports. FAC ¶¶ 3-4.[4] Plaintiff contends that the economic...
To continue reading
Request your trial