Posted January 3, 2014
In Quesada v.
Herb Thyme Farms, Inc., No. B239602, 2013 WL 6730808, (Cal. Ct. App. Dec.
23, 2013), a California Appeals Court considered a case of first impression,
holding that the federal Organic Food Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), 7 U.S.C. §
6501, preempts state consumer lawsuits alleging violations of the OFPA or
violations of California’s federally approved state organic program (SOP). For a copy of the decision, please contact
the National Agricultural Law Center at nataglaw@uark.edu.
For more information on the OFPA or the National Organic Program (NOP),
please visit the Center’s website here.
Background
Defendant, Herb Thyme Farms, is a certified grower,
federally approved to label its organically grown herbs as “USDA Organic.” Id.
at *1. Plaintiff, Quesada, alleged that
Herb Thyme mislabeled its product as “USDA Organic” when the contents contained
a mix of organically grown and conventionally grown herbs. Id. Quesada filed a class and representative action
against Herb Thyme alleging violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, false advertising, and unlawful conduct in violation of California’s unfair
competition law. Id. at *2. Herb Thyme moved
for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Quesada’s claims were preempted by
federal law. Id. The trial court granted
Herb Thyme’s motion, dismissing the case.
Id. Quesada appealed. Id.
Analysis and Holding
The California Appeals Court considered whether the
federal OFPA preempts a state consumer lawsuit based on violations of the state
California Organic Production Act of 2003 (COPA). Id.
In its analysis, the court noted that there is a
presumption against preemption of state laws that operate in traditional state
domains, citing Farm Raised Salmon Cases
(2008), 42 Cal. 4th at 1077, 1088, 72 Cal. Rptr.3d 112. Id.
at *5.
The court held, however, that the doctrine of implied
preemption bars state consumer lawsuits based on product mislabeling in
violation of the OFPA. Id. at *6. The court reasoned that the preemption
analysis of Aurora Dairy Corp. Organic
Milk Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig. V. Aurora Organic Dairy, 621 F.3d
781 (8th Cir. 2010), applied in this case.
Id. The Aurora
Dairy court explained that the purpose articulated in the OFPA, “’to establish
national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural products as
organically produced products,’ would be deeply undermined by the inevitable
divergence in applicable state laws as numerous court systems adopt possibly
conflicting interpretations of the same provisions of the OFPA and NOP.” Id.,
citing Aurora Dairy, supra, 621 F.3d
at 796.
The court also held that the implied preemption
doctrine of obstacle preemption bars state consumer lawsuits based on product mislabeling
in violation of the COPA. Id. at *7. The court reasoned that the “coordinated
state and federal regulatory scheme, the legislative history, and Congressional
intent in enacting the OFPA,” distinguish the preemption analysis from Farm Raised Salmon Cases. Id.
at *8. The court held that “there is no
private enforcement of the COPA.” Id.
