Ass'n des Éleveurs de Canards et D'Oies du Québec v. Harris, 79 F. Supp. 3d 1136

Background

Plaintiffs are foie gras producers and a California restaurant that stopped selling foie gras after California Health & Safety Code § 25982 banned sale of products that are "the result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver." Plaintiffs allege substantial lost sales and threatened prosecutions by county DAs.
Plaintiffs filed suit the day after § 25982 took effect asserting (inter alia) that the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) preempts § 25982; suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. District court previously denied a preliminary injunction; Ninth Circuit affirmed in part.
Defendant (California Attorney General) moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing no justiciable threat because she has not threatened enforcement and county DAs are the enforcers.
Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on their express preemption claim under the PPIA, arguing § 25982 imposes an "ingredient requirement" by banning sale of products containing liver from force-fed birds, which conflicts with federal law governing poultry products prepared at USDA-inspected establishments.
The court found plaintiffs have Article III standing and the dispute is ripe: plaintiffs suffered economic injury from lost California sales tied to the statute and would resume sales if § 25982 were enjoined.
On preemption, the court concluded § 25982 imposes an ingredient/labeling requirement in addition to or different from the PPIA and granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment, permanently enjoining enforcement of § 25982 against plaintiffs’ USDA-approved foie gras products.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Justiciability (standing/ripeness)	Plaintiffs have concrete economic injury from lost sales and credible enforcement threats; dispute ripe for declaratory relief	AG has not threatened enforcement; county DAs are enforcers so claim against AG is unripe	Plaintiffs have standing and claims are ripe; dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) denied
Scope of PPIA preemption (ingredient/labeling clause)	§ 25982 effectively imposes an ingredient requirement by banning products containing liver from force-fed birds, conflicting with PPIA	§ 25982 regulates a production process before USDA establishments, not an ingredient, so it falls outside ingredient preemption	§ 25982 imposes an ingredient requirement in addition to/different from federal law and is preempted under the PPIA
Applicability of National Meat Ass'n precedent	Plaintiffs: National Meat supports preemption where states attempt to regulate production by framing bans as sales prohibitions	Defendant: National Meat suggests sales bans that functionally regulate slaughterhouse operations are not preempted the same way	Court: Distinguished National Meat (different preemption clause focus) but applied its anti-evasion rationale to preclude states from avoiding PPIA preemption by drafting—result: preemption applies
Relief / scope	Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment and injunction as to § 25982 applied to their products	AG sought dismissal and argued statute is valid	Court entered partial summary judgment for plaintiffs on preemption and permanently enjoined AG from enforcing § 25982 against plaintiffs’ USDA-approved foie gras products

Key Cases Cited

Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Harris, 132 S. Ct. 965 (2012) (Supreme Court addressing FMIA preemption and risk of states evading preemption by framing regulations as sales bans)
Nat’l Broiler Council v. Voss, 44 F.3d 740 (9th Cir. 1994) (PPIA regulates poultry products including product components; state laws can be preempted where they impose additional labeling/ingredient requirements)
Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Davis, 307 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2002) (economic injury from ceasing sales due to new state law sufficed for standing and ripeness)
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (Declaratory Judgment Act requires an actual controversy under Article III)