N. Am. Meat Inst. v. Becerra

• Citation: 420 F.Supp.3d 1014
• Decision Date: 22 November 2019
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:19-CV-08569-CAS (FFMx)
• Parties: N. AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE v. BECERRA, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Central District of California

420 F.Supp.3d 1014

N. AMERICAN MEAT INSTITUTE

v.BECERRA, et al.

Case No. 2:19-CV-08569-CAS (FFMx)

United States District Court, C.D. California.

Filed November 22, 2019

Sean A Commons, Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Eric D McArthur, Paul J Zidlicky, Pro Hac Vice, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

R. Matthew Wise, Office of Attorney General California Department of Justice, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant.

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) - PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF No. 15, filed on October 4, 2019)

PROPOSED DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION TO INTERVENE (ECF No. 25, filed on October 29, 2019)

The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff North American Meat Institute ("NAMI"), a national trade association of meat packers and processors, filed this action against California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, California Secretary of Food and Agriculture Karen Ross, and California Director of Public Health Sonia Angell (collectively "California" or "the State") on October 4, 2019 to challenge the constitutionality and prevent the enforcement of California Health & Safety Code § 25990(b), which California voters enacted as Proposition 12 on November 6, 2018 ("Proposition 12"). See ECF No. 1 ("Compl."). The complaint alleges that Proposition 12 violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by: (1) discriminating against out of state producers, distributors, and sellers of pork and veal; (2) impermissibly regulating extraterritorial activities beyond California's borders; and (3) substantially burdening interstate commerce in a manner that exceeds any legitimate local benefits. Compl. ¶¶ 44-90.

Along with its complaint, NAMI concurrently filed a motion for preliminary injunction and several supporting fact declarations from its members. See ECF No. 15 ("PI"). The State of California filed an opposition to the PI motion on October 28, 2019. See ECF No. 24 ("PI Opp."). The next day, several animal welfare organizations—the Humane Society of the United States, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Equality, The Humane League, Farm Sanctuary, Compassion in World Farming USA, and Compassion Over Killing (collectively the "Intervenors" or the "Proposed Intervenors")—filed a motion to intervene as defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, as well as a brief in opposition to NAMI's PI motion. See ECF No. 25-1 ("MTI"), ECF No. 25-10 ("Int. PI Opp"). NAMI filed a reply in support of its preliminary injunction motion on November 4, 2019. See ECF No. 29 ("PI Reply").

In addition to these submissions, the California Egg Farmers Association filed an amicus brief in opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction, see ECF No. 28 ("Egg Farmers Brief"), while the States of Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah jointly filed an amicus brief in support of the motion for a preliminary injunction, see ECF No. 40 ("States' Brief").

The Court held a hearing on November 18, 2019. Having carefully considered the parties' arguments, and the submissions of amici, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the complaint, the declarations filed in support of NAMI's PI motion, the public record, and the submissions from the State and amici.

A. California Voters Enact Proposition 2 (2008)

In the November 2008 election, California voters passed Proposition 2, a ballot initiative intended to "prohibit the cruel confinement of farm animals." See Cal. Prop. 2 at § 2, as approved by voters (Gen. Elec. Nov. 4, 2008). The initiative passed with the support of 63.42% of California voters. See Cal. Sec'y State, Statement of Vote: 2008 General Election. 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).

B. California Enacts Assembly Bill 1437 (2010)

The California legislature subsequently enacted Assembly Bill 1437 ("AB 1437") in 2010. 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.

The legislative history supporting the statute stated that the regulation intended to ensure that "all eggs sold for human consumption in California" would "conform to the animal care standards" established by Proposition 2 in order to "protect California consumer's [sic] health and welfare." See Bill Analysis of AB 1437, Cal. Assembly Comm, on Agriculture (April 29, 2009). Specifically, studies "cited by the author state[d] that egg-laying hens subjected to stress have a greater chance of carrying bacteria or viruses, thus having a greater chance of exposing consumers to food borne bacteria and viruses." Id. at 1, 2. In addition to these consumer health and welfare concerns, the legislative history notes that "[s]ome supporters" advocating for AB 1437 also "stated that this bill will level the playing field for California egg producers to remain competitive with out-of-state egg producers." Id. at 1; see also Bill Analysis of AB 1437, Cal. Assembly Comm. on Agriculture (May 13, 2009) (stating same). In the enrolled version of the bill, the legislative findings state that it "is the intent of the Legislature to protect California consumers from the deleterious, health, safety, and welfare effects of the sale and consumption of eggs derived from egg-laying hens that are exposed to significant stress." Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25995.

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. III, § 2, but were denied. See Missouri v. California, No. 22-0-148 (filed U.S. Dec. 4, 2017).

C. California Enacts Proposition 12 (2018)

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. See Cal. Prop. 12 at § 1, as approved by voters (Gen. Elec. Nov. 6, 2018). The initiative passed with 62.7% of the vote. See Cal. Sec'y State, Statement of Vote: 2018 General Election. As relevant here, Proposition 12 prohibits the sale in California of "whole veal meat" and "whole pork meat" that a seller "knows or should know is the meat of a covered animal who was confined in a cruel manner" as defined by Proposition 2. Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 25990(b)(1), (b)(2).¹ The prohibition deems that a sale occurs in California "where the buyer takes physical possession" of the meat at issue in California. Id. at § 25991(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).

Proposition 12 thus operates in a manner similar to AB 1437, except that Proposition 12 applies the animal confinement standards established by Proposition 2 to the in-state sale of whole veal and whole pork products, whereas AB 1437 applies those standards to the in-state sale of hen eggs.

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 regulations implementing Proposition 12 despite the statutory deadline to do so by September 1, 2019. Id. at § 25993.

D. NAMI Files Suit Asserting Constitutional Violations

NAMI represents meat packers and processors who raise hogs and veal calves in states across the country, and who sell their pork and veal in California. See Gallimore Decl., ¶¶ 2-5. NAMI also advocates for its members in connection with legislation and regulation affecting the meat industry. Id. ¶ 3.

NAMI filed this suit alleging that Proposition 12 violates the dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against its members who produce pork and veal outside of California, impermissibly regulating its members' business activities beyond California's borders, and by substantially and unlawfully burdening its members' ability to engage in interstate commerce. Compl. ¶¶ 44-90. Because NAMI members sell a significant portion of their products into the California market, NAMI claims that, unless Proposition 12 is enjoined, its members will face a "Hobson's choice" between either (i) expending the tens of millions of dollars necessary to reconfigure their production processes to comply with the regulation (including, in some cases, dismantling and reconstructing brand new multimillion dollar facilities and securing the financing to do so), (ii) cutting production to meet Proposition 12's square footage requirements (forfeiting revenue), (iii) abandoning the California market (and forfeiting revenue), or (iv) risking the criminal penalties and fines set forth by § 25993(b). See Bakke Decl. ¶ 11, Catelli Decl. ¶¶ 8-10, Friesen Decl. ¶¶ 9-10, Darrell Decl. ¶¶ 10-15, Neff Decl. ¶¶ 4-13, Rennells Decl. ¶¶ 9-16, Turner Decl. ¶¶ 8-17, Bollum Decl. ¶¶ 5-11.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Motion To Intervene

A party may intervene pursuant to Federal Rule...