Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A. Inc v. U.S.A, Civil Action 08-02161(HHK).

CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
Writing for the CourtHENRY H. KENNEDY, Jr
Citation706 F.Supp.2d 116
PartiesDEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A., INC., Plaintiff,v.UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.
Decision Date19 April 2010
Docket NumberCivil Action 08-02161(HHK).

706 F.Supp.2d 116

UNITED STATES of America, Defendant.

Civil Action 08-02161(HHK).

United States District Court,
District of Columbia.

April 19, 2010.

706 F.Supp.2d 116
Daniel G. Jarcho, McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Alexander Daniel Shoaibi, U.S. Attorney's Office, Andrew E. Clark, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Consumer Litigation, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
HENRY H. KENNEDY, Jr., District Judge.

Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. (“Del Monte”) brings this action against the United States of America, alleging that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has engaged in an unlawful pattern and practice of delay in sampling and inspecting Del Monte's produce for import to the United States. Del Monte seeks injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to section 706(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., Before the Court is the motion of the United States to dismiss Del Monte's complaint [# 10]. Upon consideration of the motion, the opposition thereto, and the

706 F.Supp.2d 117
record of this case, the Court concludes that the motion should be granted.
A. Statutory and Regulatory Background
1. FDA inspection of imported food

The FDA has authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., to sample and inspect, inter alia, food an importer seeks to bring into the United States. 21 U.S.C. § 381(a). If the FDA determines that “it appears from the examination of such samples or otherwise” that the food “has been manufactured, processed, or packed under unsanitary conditions” or is otherwise prohibited from entry under other sections of the U.S.Code, the food “shall be refused admission” to the United States. Id. FDA regulations provide that when the FDA requests “a sample of an article offered for import” for examination, the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 1 “shall give to the owner or consignee prompt notice of delivery of, or intention to deliver, such sample.” Food and Drugs, Imports and Exports, 21 C.F.R. § 1.90; see also 21 U.S.C. § 381(a) (requiring such notice to the importer). The owner of the article “shall hold such article and not distribute it until further notice ... of the results of examination of the sample.” 21 C.F.R. § 1.90. It is the FDA's practice to issue a “Notice of Action” alerting an importer of its decision to release a particular shipment for, or to reject it from, import.

2. Suits for agency failure to act

A party may sue under the APA if she is “suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute.” 5 U.S.C. § 702. In the context of this provision and this case, “agency action” means “final agency action” and is defined as “the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act.Id. §§ 704, 551(13) (emphasis added). Pursuant to section 706(1) of the APA, if a party brings a claim arising from an agency's failure to act, a court may grant relief by “compel[ling] agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” Id. § 706(1).

The Supreme Court has made clear that a claim for relief under section 706(1) is limited to challenges to the omission of (1) “a discrete action” that is (2) “legally required.Norton v. S. Utah Wilderness Alliance (“SUWA”), 542 U.S. 55, 63, 124 S.Ct. 2373, 159 L.Ed.2d 137 (2004) (emphasis in original). The Court has further explained that “[t]he limitation to discrete agency action precludes the kind of broad programmatic attack [the Court] rejected in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation” (“Lujan”), 497 U.S. 871, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990), id., in which it held that a party “cannot seek wholesale improvement of [an agency] program by court decree, rather than in the office of the Department or the halls of Congress,” Lujan, 497 U.S. at 891, 110 S.Ct. 3177 (emphasis in original).

706 F.Supp.2d 118
B. Factual Background

Del Monte imports fresh produce into the United States and is therefore subject to the FDA's occasional inspection of samples of the fruits or vegetables it seeks to bring into the country. The basis of this action is Del Monte's allegation that the FDA often allows too much time to pass before completing those inspections, causing Del Monte's produce to become less fresh and therefore to lose value. As examples of this delay, Del Monte describes six instances between early 2008 and early 2009 in which the FDA requested a sample of a shipment of produce-specifically, in each instance, either bananas, cantaloupes, or plantains-and did not issue the resulting Notice of Action to Del Monte until so many days had passed-specifically, between six and eleven-that Del Monte was harmed.

Del Monte asserts in this action that “[s]ince at least 2006, FDA has engaged in, and continues to engage in, a pattern and practice of unreasonably and/or unlawfully delaying sampling, inspection, examination and release of perishable fresh produce imported or offered by Del Monte for import into the United States.” Compl. ¶ 8.2 Del Monte requests that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Californians for Renewable Energy v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency & Scott Pruitt, Case No: C 15-3292 SBA
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • March 30, 2018
    ...making a programmatic attack, which is impermissible under Norton and Lujan. See Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. v. United States, 706 F. Supp. 2d 116, 119 (D.D.C. 2010) (finding that a claim challenging the Food and Drug Administration's "pattern and practice" of unreasonable delay in h......
  • The Univ. Of Tex. M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. v. Sebelius, Civil Action No. RDB-08-0946.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • April 19, 2010 is this 19th day of April, 2010, ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that:1. Plaintiff the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center's Motion706 F.Supp.2d 116 for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 14) is DENIED;2. The Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (Paper No. 16) of Defendant Kathleen Sebelius, Sec......
  • Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Civil Action No. 16–175 (BAH)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 28, 2017
    ...CBD does not allege that EPA ever decided to refuse to produce any records. See Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A. v. United States , 706 F.Supp.2d 116, 120 (D.D.C. 2010) (" Payne Enterprises regards the repeated denial of Freedom of Information requests based on invocation of inapplicable statut......
  • AL Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen, Case No. 17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • August 20, 2018
    ...pattern or practice of failing to timely act on administrative complaints); Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc. v. United States , 706 F.Supp.2d 116 (D.D.C. 2010) (dismissing claim against FDA for an alleged unlawful pattern and practice of delay in sampling and inspecting food imported by p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT