Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc.

Decision Date23 December 2013
Docket NumberB239602
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
Parties Michelle QUESADA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HERB THYME FARMS, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

Law Office of Raymond P. Boucher, Raymond P. Boucher ; Whatley Kallas, Edith M. Kallas, Alan M. Mansfield ; Kiesel + Larson, Helen Zukin, Maria L. Weitz, Beverly Hills; Johnson & Johnson and Neville Johnson for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Greenberg Traurig, Mark D. Kemple, Los Angeles, and Angela L. Diesch, Sacramento, for Defendant and Respondent.

ALDRICH, J.

In this case of first impression, we address whether the federal Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA or the Act) ( 7 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq. ),1 which governs the labeling of agricultural products as "organic" and "USDA Organic," preempts state consumer lawsuits alleging violations of the Act or violations of California's federally approved state organic program (SOP), which is codified as the California Organic Products Act of 2003 (COPA) ( Food & Agr.Code, § 46000 et seq. ; Health & Saf.Code, § 110810 et seq. ). Given this state-federal regulatory scheme, the resolution of this issue requires us to consider what, if any, impact Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 175 P.3d 1170 has on our preemption analysis.

We conclude that in enacting the OFPA, Congress made clear its intention to preclude private enforcement through state consumer lawsuits in order to achieve its objective of establishing a national standard for the use of "organic" and "USDA Organic" in labeling agricultural products. Unlike Farm Raised Salmon Cases,supra, 42 Cal.4th 1077, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 175 P.3d 1170, where Congress did not intend to alter the status quo in which residents may choose to file unfair competition claims or other claims based on violations of identical state laws, in enacting the OFPA, Congress did intend to alter the status quo. Congress mandated federal approval and oversight of state organic programs to ensure consistent federal and state government enforcement for violations of the Act. COPA, California's federally approved SOP, has a remedial scheme that does not include private enforcement. A state consumer lawsuit based on COPA violations, or violations of the OFPA, would frustrate the congressional purpose of exclusive federal and state government prosecution and erode the enforcement methods by which the Act was designed to create a national organic standard. Accordingly, this lawsuit poses a clear obstacle to the accomplishment of the congressional objectives in enacting the OFPA and so it is preempted. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment dismissing this class and representative action filed by plaintiff Michelle Quesada against Herb Thyme Farms, Inc. (Herb Thyme).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Herb Thyme is a certified grower with federal approval to label its organically grown herbs as "USDA Organic." Herb Thyme allegedly mislabeled its product as "Fresh Organic" and used the "USDA Organic" graphic on its product packaging, when the contents contained a mix of organically grown herbs and conventionally grown herbs. Quesada alleges Herb Thyme "misrepresented the source, approval or certification of their non-organic fresh herb products," as "Fresh Organic" products.2

Quesada, on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a class and representative action against Herb Thyme. The second amended class action complaint (complaint) alleges causes of action for (1) unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) ( Civ.Code, § 1750 et seq. ); (2) violation of the false advertising law ( Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17500 et seq. ); (3) unlawful conduct in violation of the unfair competition law (UCL) ( Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200 et seq. ); and (4) unfair and fraudulent conduct in violation of the UCL.3 The laws alleged to be violated as a predicate for the "unlawful" prong of the UCL claim include provisions of the CLRA, and the false advertising law.4 The complaint does not cite either the OFPA or COPA.

Herb Thyme moved for judgment on the pleadings on two grounds—Quesada's claims are preempted by federal law, and the (USDA) has primary jurisdiction. Relying on the express language in various provisions of the OFPA, and a federal appellate case interpreting the OFPA, Aurora Dairy Corp. Organic Milk Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig. v. Aurora Organic Dairy (8th Cir.2010) 621 F.3d 781 ( Aurora Dairy ), Herb Thyme argued the state consumer law claims alleging noncompliance with organic labeling laws were expressly preempted because these claims implicated the certification process under the OFPA. Herb Thyme also argued these state consumer law claims were impliedly preempted because a resolution of this action would conflict with regulation and enforcement of the OFPA by the federal government. The trial court agreed with Herb Thyme's preemption analysis, granted the motion, and entered judgment of dismissal. Quesada timely appeals.

During the course of the briefing on appeal, Quesada changed positions and now contends this action is based solely on violations of COPA. The reply brief states: "Ms. Quesada is not enforcing federal regulations; she brings state law claims for organic labeling violations in the State of California based on the State's organic labeling laws. Such labeling in California is regulated by the California SOP, not the NOP...."5 In asserting this new theory of liability, Quesada contends that Farm Raised Salmon Cases,supra, 42 Cal.4th 1077, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 175 P.3d 1170, is controlling as the California Supreme Court addressed federal preemption under a similar state-federal regulatory scheme.

After oral argument, this court requested the parties brief questions related to Quesada's new theory of liability, specifically, whether a state consumer lawsuit based upon violations of COPA is preempted. Although the trial court did not consider the preemption question under COPA, we address the preemption issue under both the state and federal regulatory schemes because preemption is purely a legal issue, which we review de novo. (See Farm Raised Salmon Cases,supra, 42 Cal.4th at pp. 1089–1090, fn. 11, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 175 P.3d 1170.)

DISCUSSION
1. Statutory Framework
a. The OFPA and the National Organic Program (NOP)

(1). Organic Labeling of Agricultural Products

As noted, the OFPA establishes national standards for the sale and labeling of organically produced agricultural products, assures consumers that organically produced products meet consistent standards, and facilitates interstate commerce in organically grown fresh and processed food. ( § 6501 ; Harvey v. Veneman (1st Cir.2005) 396 F.3d 28, 31–32.) "The Act furthers these purposes by establishing a national certification program for producers and handlers of organic products and by regulating the labeling of organic products .... §§ 6503(a), 6504, 6505(a)(1)(A)." ( Harvey v. Veneman,supra, at p. 32 ; see 7 C.F.R. §§ 205.1 – 205.681 (2012).) The USDA has promulgated regulations, known as the NOP, regulating which products can be labeled and sold as organic.

(2). The OFPA Permits States to Establish State Organic Certification Programs

Congress expressly permits states to establish a state organic certification program.6 (§ 6507; 7 C.F.R. § 205.620 (2012).) A state organic certification program must meet the requirements of the OFPA, be approved by the federal Secretary of Agriculture, and ensure products that are sold or labeled as "organic" are produced and handled using organic methods. (§ 6502(20).) After initial approval, the USDA has oversight of a state's organic certification program, which includes a mandatory review not less than once during each five-year period. (§ 6507(c); 7 C.F.R. § 205.622 (2012).)

(3). Enforcement of the OFPA

Congress did not create a private right of action to enforce the OFPA or its implementing regulations. (§ 6519; Final Rule, 65 Fed.Reg. 80627 (Dec. 21, 2000).)

Any agricultural producer or operation, whether certified or not, that knowingly sells or labels a product as organic, except in accordance with the Act, is subject to a civil penalty. (§ 6519(a); 7 C.F.R. § 205.100(c)(1) (2012).) Congress directed the USDA to establish an "expedited administrative appeals procedure" that allows a person to appeal any action taken under the federal program by the USDA, the applicable governing state official, or a certifying agent if that action "(1) adversely affects such person; or [¶] (2) is inconsistent with the organic certification program established under this chapter." (§ 6520(a); see 7 C.F.R § 205.681 (2012).) The only judicial remedy is an appeal of a final agency decision to the United States District Court. (§ 6520(b).)

For certified operations, the USDA administratively enforces noncompliance, revocation, or suspension of certification. ( 7 C.F.R. §§ 205.662, 205.681 (2012).) The governing state official is responsible for administrative enforcement in states with SOPs. ( 7 C.F.R. § 205.620(d) (2012).) An SOP's governing state official must notify the federal Secretary of Agriculture upon commencement of any noncompliance proceeding against a certified operation. ( 7 C.F.R. § 205.668(a) (2012).) "In States with approved SOP's [sic ], the SOP will oversee certification compliance proceedings and handle appeals from certified operations in the State. An SOP's appeal procedures and rules of procedure must be approved by the Secretary and must be equivalent to those of the NOP and USDA. The final decision on an appeal under the SOP may be appealed by the appellant to the United States District Court for the district in which the appellant is located." (Final Rule, 65 Fed.Reg. 80634–80635 (Dec. 21, 2000) ; see 7 C.F.R. § 205.668(b) (2012).)

b. COPA

As noted, COPA is California's federally approved SOP, which is codified in both the Food and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • In re HSBC Bank
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 5 Marzo 2014
    ... ... 19, 2012, Ofra Levin, 33 Seminary LLC, Binghouse Inc., and Rock View Ventures LLC (the former Levin Plaintiffs) ... that at the same time is forbidden by law.’ ” Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc., 222 Cal.App.4th 642, 649 n. 4, ... ...
  • Quesada v. Herb Thyme Farms, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 30 Abril 2014
    ...166 Cal.Rptr.3d 346Michelle QUESADA, Plaintiff and Appellant,v.HERB THYME FARMS, INC., Defendant and Respondent.B239602Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.Filed December 23, 2013Review Granted April 30, See 7 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Constitutional La......

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