Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Compassion Over Killing v. U.S. Food & Drug Administration

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

February 27, 2017

Compassion Over Killing, a nonprofit organization; Animal Legal Defense Fund, a non-profit organization; Elizabeth Barrett; Andrea Bock; Linda Calbreath; Jason Canada; Jeri Opalk; Humberto Retana, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
U.S. Food & Drug Administration; Margaret Hamburg, M.D., Commissioner; Agriculture Marketing Service; David R. Shipman, Administrator; Food Safety And Inspection Service; Alfred V. Almanza, Administrator; Federal Trade Commission; Edith Ramirez, Chairwoman, Defendants-Appellees.

          Argued and Submitted December 14, 2016 San Francisco, California

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Vince G. Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01385-VC

          Monte M.F. Cooper (argued), Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, California; Karen G. Johnson-McKewan, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

          Jeffrey E. Sandberg (argued) and Mark B. Stern, Attorneys, Appellate Staff; Brian Stretch, Acting United States Attorney; Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellees.

          Before: Michael Daly Hawkins, Marsha S. Berzon, and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.

         SUMMARY[*]

         Rulemaking

         The panel affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of federal agencies in a lawsuit alleging that the agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously in dismissing plaintiffs' rulemaking petitions, which requested that each agency promulgate regulations that would require all egg cartons to identify the conditions in which the egg-laying hens were kept during production.

         The panel held that the Food Safety and Inspection Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying plaintiffs' rulemaking petition because the agency correctly concluded that it lacked authority to promulgate plaintiffs' proposed labeling regulations for shell eggs. The panel also held that the Agricultural Marketing Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying plaintiffs' rulemaking petition because the agency correctly concluded that it lacked the authority to promulgate mandatory labeling requirements for shell eggs.

         The panel held that the Federal Trade Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying plaintiffs' rulemaking petition. Specifically, the panel held that the FTC reasonably denied plaintiffs' petition in light of the limited evidence before the FTC showing any "prevalent" unfair or deceptive practices. The panel further held that the FTC reasonably denied plaintiffs' rulemaking petition based on its discretion to combat any potentially misleading egg labeling through ad hoc enforcement proceedings.

         The panel held that the Food and Drug Administration barely met its low burden to clearly indicate that it considered the potential problem identified in plaintiffs' petition, and provide a reasonable explanation for not initiating rulemaking.

          OPINION

          MURGUIA, CIRCUIT JUDGE:

         Plaintiffs Compassion Over Killing, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and six individual egg consumers submitted rulemaking petitions to Defendants U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"), Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), Agricultural Marketing Service ("AMS"), and Food Safety and Inspection Service ("FSIS"), requesting that each agency promulgate regulations that would require all egg cartons to identify the conditions in which the egg-laying hens were kept during production. Each agency denied Plaintiffs' rulemaking petition. Plaintiffs initiated the underlying lawsuit claiming that each agency had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in dismissing their rulemaking petitions. The district court concluded that Defendants had each acted ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.