National Meat Association v. Brown et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against all defendants by National Meat Association. Attorney Schmidt, Kent Jeffrey added. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Schmidt, Kent)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

KENT J. SCHMIDT (SBN 195969)
[e-mail]
ZACHARY BULTHUIS (SBN 223825)
[e-mail]
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
38 Technology Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618-5310
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
STEVEN J. WELLS
(to be admitted pro hac vice)
HEATHER M. MCCANN
(to be admitted pro hac vice)
TIMOTHY J. DROSKE
(to be admitted pro hac vice)
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-1498
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
NATIONAL MEAT ASSOCIATION

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

FRESNO DIVISION

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

CASE NO: ______________

NATIONAL MEAT ASSOCIATION, a
not-for-profit corporation,

COMPLAINT FOR:

Plaintiff,

1. Declaratory Relief and
2. Injunctive Relief

v.
EDMUND GERALD BROWN, in his
official capacity as Attorney General of
California, ARNOLD
SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official
capacity as Governor of California, and
the STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Defendants.

26
27
28

1
COMPLAINT

1

Plaintiff NATIONAL MEAT ASSOCIATION (“NMA”) makes and files this

2

Complaint against Defendants EDMUND BROWN, California’s Attorney General,

3

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, the Governor of California, and the STATE OF

4

CALIFORNIA (collectively, “Defendants”) and alleges as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION

5
6

1.

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C.

7

§ 2201. As set forth below, NMA seeks a declaration from this Court that Section

8

599f of Title 14 of the California Penal Code, as amended and effective January 1,

9

2009, particularly as it applies to the slaughter of swine and the processing of pork

10

and pork products, is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (“FMIA”), 21

11

U.S.C. § 601 et seq., and its implementing regulations, which regulate the

12

slaughter, processing, inspection, labeling, and sale of meat and meat products in

13

the United States. In addition, NMA seeks a declaration that Section 599f is

14

unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause of the United States

15

Constitution, Art. I § 8, cl. 3, and is void for vagueness under the Fourteenth

16

Amendment to the United States Constitution.
THE PARTIES

17
18

2.

Plaintiff NMA, formerly known as the Western States Meat Packers

19

Association, is a voluntary membership-based trade association organized and

20

existing under the laws of the State of California and having its headquarters in

21

Oakland, California.

22

3.

NMA’s predecessor was founded in 1946 and represents the interests

23

of packers and processors, who slaughter livestock, including swine, and who

24

market meats, including pork and pork products, throughout the United States.

26

NMA’s members, which include members based in the Eastern District of

27

California, package and process meat products that are sold in every district in

28

California, including the Eastern District of California.
2
COMPLAINT

1

4.

Defendant State of California is a State that, through its officers and

2

agencies, including Defendant Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Governor of the State

3

of California, and Defendant Edmund Brown, the Attorney General of the State of

4

California, enforces Section 599f of the California Penal Code. As it exists today,

5

Section 599f prohibits only non-federally inspected slaughterhouses, stockyards,

6

and auctions from buying, selling, or receiving a nonambulatory animal. Similarly,

7

as of the date of this Complaint, Section 599f does not prohibit a slaughterhouse

8

from processing, butchering, or selling meat or meat products of nonambulatory

9

animals. Finally, under existing law, violations of the statute are considered

10

misdemeanors, punishable by up to six months imprisonment, or fines up to $1,000,

11

or both.

12

5.

On January 1, 2009, Section 599f, as amended and approved by the

13

Governor of the State of California on July 22, 2008, will become effective

14

(“Amended Section 599f”). Amended Section 599f dramatically increases the

15

prohibitions on and regulation of the purchase, sale, receipt, and processing of

16

nonambulatory swine and swine products at slaughterhouses located within the

17

State of California. Of particular relevance to swine slaughterhouses, Amended

18

Section 599f will (a) prohibit any slaughterhouse, stockyard, auction, market

19

agency, or dealer from buying, selling, or receiving a nonambulatory animal; (b)

20

prohibit a slaughterhouse from processing, butchering, or selling meat or meat

21

products of nonambulatory animals for human consumption; and (c) require a

22

slaughterhouse to immediately euthanize any nonambulatory animal being held for

23

slaughter. The statute criminalizes conduct that violates these provisions, and

24

makes such crimes punishable by imprisonment not to exceed one year and/or by

26

up to a $20,000 fine per occurrence.

27
28
3
COMPLAINT

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1
2

6.

Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this case

3

involves claims that arise under the United States Constitution. See Shaw v. Delta

4

Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96 n.14 (1983).

5

7.

NMA is filing this representative action on behalf of its members who

6

are engaged in the slaughtering, processing, and selling of swine and swine

7

products to protect their rights and to establish certainty regarding their legal

8

obligations.

9

8.

Venue is proper in this judicial district. NMA’s members, which

10

include members based in the Eastern District of California, package, supply and/or

11

process meat products that are sold in every district in California, including the

12

Eastern District of California. Amended Section 599f, if applied to or enforced

13

against members of NMA, would directly affect the purchasing, processing, and

14

sale of their meat products in the Eastern District of California and would impact

15

their interests in the Eastern District of California. Thus, the controversy alleged

16

herein arises in the State of California, including the Eastern District of California.

17

NECESSITY OF DECLARATORY RELIEF

18

9.

An actual controversy has arisen and now exists because NMA’s

19

members face the imminent threat of criminal sanctions if they do not comply with

20

the amended provisions of Section 599f, which become effective on January 1,

21

2009. As set forth below, Amended Section 599f is preempted by federal law,

22

violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and is, in part,

23

unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

24

10.

Amended Section 599f is preempted by federal law because: (1) the

26

FMIA expressly preempts “different” or “additional” processing and safety

27

inspection requirements imposed by state law; (2) application of Amended Section

28

599f would conflict with the FMIA’s processing and safety inspection
requirements; and (3) application of Amended Section 599f would frustrate
4
COMPLAINT

1

Congress’ objective of establishing a comprehensive and uniform federal regulatory

2

scheme that governs meat labeling, processing, and inspection.
11.

3

NMA seeks a declaration from this Court that Amended Section 599f

4

is not enforceable as to federally-inspected swine slaughterhouses or processors in

5

the State of California. Specifically, NMA seeks a declaration that the FMIA, its

6

objectives, its amendments, its implementing regulations, and the USDA’s

7

objectives in implementing the FMIA preempt Amended Section 599f as applied to

8

swine slaughterhouses regulated by the FMIA.
12.

9

Such a declaration is necessary and proper at this time so that NMA’s

10

members may have certainty as to their legal obligations and conduct business

11

without exposure to potential criminal liability for violations of Amended Section

12

599f.

13

13.

Absent a judicial declaration that Amended Section 599f is preempted

14

and unenforceable as to swine slaughterhouses, NMA’s members are forced to

15

choose between compliance with the FMIA’s processing and safety inspection

16

requirements or the different and conflicting Amended Section 599f requirements,

17

thereby risking exposure to criminal liability and significant monetary penalties

18

under one statutory scheme when complying with the other. In addition, NMA’s

19

members risk having to bear the cost of having to defend against enforcement

20

actions pursuant to Amended Section 599f.

21

14.

The actual controversy presented to this Court is ripe for adjudication

22

and suitable for judicial determination. It is an existing legal dispute between the

23

parties regarding a discrete issue and is based on ongoing and prospective conduct.

24

There are no relevant or effective administrative remedies available to NMA or its

26

members that would resolve the matter. The only way for Plaintiff’s members to

27

obtain a binding pre-enforcement determination that their meat products are exempt

28

from Amended Section 599f is via declaratory judgment and injunction.
5
COMPLAINT

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1
2

A.

Overview of the Preempted State Statutory Provision: Amended

3

California Penal Code Section 599f

4

15.

Section 599f of Title 14 of the California Penal Code, as amended, was

5

adopted by the State of California on July 22, 2008, and will become effective on

6

January 1, 2009. As compared to federal law and current state law, the Amended

7

Statute dramatically expands the prohibitions on and regulations of the purchase,

8

slaughter, processing, inspection, and sale of meat and meat products. At the same

9

time, the Amended Section 599f substantially increases the criminal penalties

10

associated with violations of the statute. Together, the breadth of the scope of the

11

new regulations and the heightened criminal penalties and fines expose swine

12

slaughterhouses and their employees to significantly expanded criminal liability for

13

violations of Amended Section 599f.

14
15

16.

Particularly at issue are three provisions of Amended Section 599f as

applied to swine and swine products:
(a) No slaughterhouse, stockyard, auction, market

16
17

agency, or dealer shall buy, sell, or receive a

18

nonambulatory animal;
(b) No slaughterhouse shall process, butcher, or sell

19
20

meat or meat products of nonambulatory animals for

21

human consumption; and,

22

(c) No slaughterhouse shall hold a nonambulatory

23

animal without taking immediate action to euthanize the

24

animal.

26
27
28

Cal. Penal Code § 599f (as amended).
17.

“Nonambulatory” is defined by Amended Section 599f to mean

“unable to stand or walk without assistance.” Cal. Penal Code § 599f, subd. (i) (as
amended).
6
COMPLAINT

18.

1

Violations of Amended Section 599f are crimes, punishable by

2

imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine of up to $20,000, or both imprisonment

3

and a fine. Cal. Penal Code § 599f, subd. (h) (as amended).
19.

4

As it exists today (i.e., prior to the amendment), Section 599f contains

5

markedly different prohibitions. As of the date of this Complaint, Section 599f

6

prohibits only non-federally inspected slaughterhouses, stockyards, and auctions

7

from buying, selling, or receiving a nonambulatory animal. Moreover, Section

8

599f does not prohibit a slaughterhouse from processing, butchering, or selling

9

meat or meat products of nonambulatory animals. Violations of the current statute

10

are punishable only as misdemeanors.

11

B.

Overview of the Preempting Federal Statute: The Federal Meat

12

Inspection Act

13

20.

The FMIA was passed in 1907 in response to Upton Sinclair’s The

14

Jungle. When the book’s documentation of unsanitary packing practices at large

15

Chicago stockyards shook the American public’s confidence in the safety of meat,

16

leaders of the meat industry joined the public in calling for legislation and

17

regulation to reform the industry, recognizing that a uniform inspection and

18

processing system were necessary to restore the public’s faith in the safety of meat.

19

21.

Recognizing that meat is an important source of the nation’s food

20

supply, Congress enacted the FMIA with the objective of protecting the markets for

21

wholesome and unadulterated meat by assuring consumers that the meat products

22

they consume satisfy uniform standards established by the federal government. 21

23

U.S.C. § 602. At the same time, Congress sought to protect animal welfare in the

24

slaughter process.

26

22.

In order to advance those objectives, the FMIA establishes a

27

comprehensive and uniform federal scheme regulating labeling, processing and

28

inspection of meat in a manner that ensures that all meat sold to consumers is
7
COMPLAINT

1

wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged, and that

2

animals are treated humanely in the process. 21 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.

3

23.

Congress expressly has placed the regulation of meat processing,

4

inspections, and labeling within the exclusive domain of the federal government

5

and prohibited states from attempting to impose any “additional” or “different”

6

requirements.

7

24.

Specifically, to ensure uniformity and effectiveness of federal meat

8

safety inspection regulation, the FMIA includes an express preemption provision

9

that states, in relevant part:

10

Requirements within the scope of this chapter with respect
to premises, facilities and operations of any establishment
at which inspection is provided . . . which are in addition
to, or different than those made under this chapter may
not be imposed by any State or Territory or the District of
Columbia . . . .

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28

21 U.S.C. § 678 (emphasis added).
25.

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”), an agency of the

United States Department of Agriculture (“ USDA”), is charged with implementing
and enforcing the FMIA. FSIS protects the nation’s meat supply by closely
monitoring the entire meat production process to ensure that only wholesome and
unadulterated meat reaches the marketplace.
26.

The FMIA implementing regulations set forth in Title 9 of the Code of

Federal Regulations, 9 C.F.R. § 301 et seq., govern the meat production process
from the time animals are delivered to the slaughterhouse to the time consumers
purchase the meat product. FSIS officials conduct a variety of inspections,
including, but not limited to, inspections of animals prior to entering a
slaughterhouse, packing, meat-canning, rendering, or similar establishment, 21
U.S.C. § 603(a); post-mortem inspections of carcasses to ensure that they are not
adulterated, 21 U.S.C. § 604; examination of carcasses brought into slaughtering or
packing establishments, 21 U.S.C. § 605; examination of all “meat food products”
8
COMPLAINT

1

prepared at any slaughtering, meat-canning, salting, packing, rendering, or similar

2

establishment, 21 U.S.C. § 606; and inspections of slaughtering and meat

3

preparation establishments to ensure sanitary conditions, 21 U.S.C. § 608. Meat

4

may only be packaged in containers free of all poisonous or deleterious substances

5

that might render the contents adulterated or injurious to health. 9 C.F.R. § 317.24.

6

27.

The FMIA prohibits the sale of “adulterated” meat, defined as meat

7

that “bears or contains any such poisonous or deleterious substance which may

8

render it injurious to health.” 21 U.S.C. § 601(m). Thus, the key assessment made

9

by FSIS is whether a meat product “may” be “injurious to health.” The mere

10

presence of a deleterious substance does not render meet “adulterated.” Rather, the

11

deleterious substance must be present at a level that makes consumption of the meat

12

unhealthy or unsafe—a determination exclusively reserved to the FSIS. 21 U.S.C.

13

§ 621; 9 C.F.R. § 300.2.

14

28.

The FMIA includes regulations and directives that govern how federal

15

officials are required to handle fatigued or stressed swine, which the State may

16

consider to be “nonambulatory” under the Amended Section 599f.

17

29.

FSIS Directive 6100.1, entitled “Antemortem Livestock Inspection,”

18

instructs FSIS officials “to pass for slaughter, livestock that do not show signs of

19

diseases or abnormalities and that are fit to slaughter for human consumption.”

20

30.

In addition to this Directive, FSIS regulations also permit inspectors to

21

tag certain animals as either “U.S. Suspect” or “U.S. Condemned” and allow

22

animals so tagged which show no signs of disease to proceed to slaughter. Section

23

309.2 of Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which applies to “U.S.

24

Suspect” animals, provides that:
All seriously crippled and non-ambulatory disabled
livestock shall be identified as U.S. Suspects and disposed
of as provided in § 311.1 of this chapter unless they are
required to be classed as condemned under § 309.3. Nonambulatory disabled livestock are livestock that cannot
rise from a recumbent position or that cannot walk,

26
27
28

9
COMPLAINT

including, but not limited to, those with broken
appendages, severed tendons or ligaments, nerve
paralysis, fractured vertebral column, or metabolic
conditions.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

9 C.F.R. § 309.2. This regulation applies to and includes livestock that are
physically disabled or fatigued but disease-free within the definition of
“nonambulatory” animals. Section 311.1 and FSIS Directive 6100.1 allow such
animals to be passed for slaughter and human consumption.
31.

applies to “U.S. Condemned” animals, provides that:

10

Any livestock found in a comatose or semicomatose
condition or affected with any condition not otherwise
covered in this part, which would preclude release of the
animal for slaughter for human food, shall be identified
“U.S. Condemned” and disposed of in accordance with §
309.13, except that such animal may be set apart and held
for further observation or treatment under supervision of
a Program employee or other official designated by the
area supervisor and for final disposition in accordance
with this part.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Section 309.3(d) of Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which

9 C.F.R. § 309.3(d) (emphasis added).
32.

Thus, the federal regulations permit slaughterhouses to purchase,

19

slaughter, process, and sell meat from swine that are temporarily unable to stand or

20

walk (for example because it is fatigued or stressed), whether or not it is labeled

21

“U.S. Suspect” or “U.S. Condemned,” as long as the animals are inspected and

22

passed by a federal inspector. In contrast, the Amended Section 599f would

23

prohibit these actions. Instead of allowing federal inspectors to determine whether

24

a “downed” animal is fit for slaughter and human consumption, Amended Section

26

599f expressly forbids the purchase, sale, receipt, processing or butchering of

27

downed animals and demands that the meat from such animals be removed from the

28

human food supply. Thus, the California law establishes “additional,” “different,”
10
COMPLAINT

1

and conflicting requirements for the processing and inspection of swine and swine

2

products.

3

C.

Application of Amended Section 599f Imposes Substantial Burdens on

4

Plaintiffs’ Members

5

33.

The immediate potential for criminal liability under State law is

6

illustrated by considering the impact on the operations of hog slaughterhouses in

7

California that fully comply with the FMIA and FSIS inspection.

8
9

34.

Hogs can become stressed or fatigued in transit and, as a result, cannot

stand or walk upon arrival. However, for nearly all hogs, the hog’s inability to

10

stand or walk as the result of fatigue or stress is merely temporary; virtually all are

11

able to stand and walk after rest and supervision. Moreover, even hogs that are able

12

to stand and walk upon arrival may not be able to do so after being placed in a

13

holding pen, often as a result of heat, stress, or fatigue; reasons having nothing at all

14

to do with disease. Still others are capable of standing and walking, but simply

15

refuse to do so.

16

35.

Under federal law, hogs that cannot stand and walk upon arrival are set

17

aside for supervision and routinely pass federal inspection. Similarly, a federal

18

inspector clears each lot of pigs held by the slaughterhouse before the slaughter.

19

Any hog that becomes unable to stand or walk or refuses to do so while awaiting

20

the slaughter is assisted to slaughter. These hogs may still be placed in the

21

slaughter for human consumption.

22

36.

Under the Amended Section 599f, the slaughterhouse could be subject

23

to criminal prosecution for simply receiving hogs that cannot or will not stand or

24

walk upon arrival. Thus, in order to avoid prosecution, the slaughterhouse would

26

be forced to turn away fatigued or stressed hogs that are only temporarily unable to

27

stand or walk. Those hogs could not be set aside or inspected by the FSIS, as

28

permitted under federal law, much less cleared for processing, also as permitted
11
COMPLAINT

1

under federal law. The amended statute thus imposes “different” or “additional”

2

requirements on federal inspection.

3

37.

The Amended Section 599f also prohibits slaughterhouses from

4

processing any hog that becomes unable to stand or walk, or refuses to do so, while

5

in the holding pen or being led to slaughter, and that hog could not be used for

6

human consumption. The amended statute thus imposes yet another “different” or

7

“additional” requirement on the federal inspection process.

8

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

9

(Declaratory Relief; Preemption)

10
11
12

38.

NMA incorporates the foregoing allegations of each of the previous

paragraphs by reference as though alleged in full at this point.
39.

Application of Amended Section 599f to federally-inspected swine

13

slaughterhouses or processors violates Article VI, Section 2 of the United States

14

Constitution (the “Supremacy Clause”).

15

40.

Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law where, as

16

here, Congress expresses an intent to preempt state law through explicit statutory

17

language. The FMIA explicitly prohibits states from imposing “additional” or

18

“different” labeling, processing, or inspection requirements on meat governed by

19

the FMIA. 21 U.S.C. § 678.

20

41.

Federal law similarly preempts state law where, as here, the state law

21

conflicts with federal law or the federal law demonstrates that Congress intended to

22

exclusively occupy the field.

23

42.

Because any processing or inspection requirement that would be

24

imposed by Amended Section 599f would be “additional” to, “different” from, and

26

conflict with, federal processing and inspection requirements, Amended Section

27

599f as applied to swine and swine products is preempted by the FMIA.

28

43.

NMA is therefore entitled to a judgment declaring that the FMIA, 21

U.S.C. § 601 et seq., and its implementing regulations, preempt the Amended
12
COMPLAINT

1

Section 599f processing and inspection requirements as applied to swine and swine

2

products regulated by the FMIA.

3
4

44.

Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to

determine the rights and obligations of the parties.

5

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

6

(Declaratory Judgment; Violation of Commerce Clause)

7
8
9

45.

NMA incorporates the foregoing allegations of each of the previous

paragraphs by reference as though alleged in full at this point.
46.

Application of Amended Section 599f to federally-inspected swine and

10

swine products violates Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the United States

11

Constitution (the “Commerce Clause”).

12
13
14

47.

Under the Commerce Clause, a state’s law may not discriminate

against out-of-state entities or excessively burden interstate commerce.
48.

Amended Section 599f excessively burdens interstate commerce

15

because it severely restricts the amount of swine meat entering the field of

16

commerce while simultaneously burdening swine processing companies with the

17

cost of implementing a set of standard operating procedures that deviate from an

18

otherwise national standard.

19

49.

There is little, if any, benefit to the State’s regulation of the processing

20

and inspection of swine. The federal regulations adequately ensure the safety of

21

swine meat entering the food supply and protect the health of humans. Upon

22

information and belief, there has never been a reported case of disease or health risk

23

to humans based on the purchase, processing, or sale of nonambulatory swine meat

24

from a federally-inspected facility. Additionally, State concerns regarding animal

26

welfare are not implicated by allowing swine temporarily unable to stand or walk to

27

remain part of the slaughter. Thus, the burden imposed on interstate commerce is

28

clearly excessive in relation to its putative local benefits. In fact, the State law
obtains no additional benefit that is not already addressed by the federal law.
13
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4

50.

NMA is therefore entitled to a judgment declaring that the Amended

Section 599f processing and inspection requirements violate the Commerce Clause.
51.

Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to

determine the rights and obligations of the parties.

5

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

6

(Declaratory Judgment; Void For Vagueness)

7
8
9

52.

NMA incorporates the foregoing allegations of each of the previous

paragraphs by reference as though alleged in full at this point.
53.

Application of Amended Section 599f to federally-inspected meat

10

violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the

11

Section, as amended, is void for vagueness.

12

54.

Amended Section 599f defines a “nonambulatory” animal as one

13

“unable to stand or walk without assistance.” This definition is unconstitutionally

14

vague because it fails to provide a coherent standard as to which criminality can be

15

ascertained.

16

55.

In particular, the statute does not define the time period for which an

17

animal must be unable to stand or walk and thus imposes criminal penalties on

18

slaughterhouses that fail to euthanize an animal immediately without any regard for

19

the realities of hog and other meat processing.

20

56.

This is particularly significant to hog processing where a hog may be

21

unable to stand or walk immediately after transport because the hog is fatigued or

22

stressed, or simply refuses to do so, but is able to stand or walk after rest and

23

inspection. Similarly, a hog that is held during the summer months may become

24

fatigued or stressed and unable to stand or walk for a period of time, but is not

26

permanently unable to do so.

27
28

57.

NMA is therefore entitled to a judgment declaring that the definition of

“nonambulatory” in Amended Section 599f violates the Fourteenth Amendment
because it is void for vagueness.
14
COMPLAINT

1
2

58.

Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to

determine the rights and obligations of the parties.

3

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

4

(Injunctive Relief)

5

59.

The enforcement or threat of enforcement of Amended Section 599f

6

will cause immediate and irreversible injury to NMA’s members which slaughter or

7

process swine, including, but not limited to, loss of opportunity, disruption of

8

business, lost profits, diminution in value, and criminal fines and penalties.

9

60.

Because the State’s conduct causes harm that cannot be adequately

10

compensated in damages, NMA requests that the Court issue preliminary and

11

permanent injunctive relief enjoining the State of California from enforcing

12

Amended Section 599f with respect to swine slaughterhouses and swine products.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

13
14
15
16

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows:
1.

For a judgment in its favor on each and every cause of action alleged

in the Complaint:
(a)

17

A judgment declaring that the FMIA, 21 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., its

18

objectives, its amendments, its implementing regulations, and the USDA’s

19

objectives in implementing the FMIA preempt the Amended Section 599f, as

20

applied to slaughterhouses, including swine slaughterhouses;
(b)

21
22

Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution; and,
(c)

23
24

A judgment declaring that Amended Section 599f violates the

A judgment declaring that the definition of “nonambulatory”

animal contained in Amended Section 599f is void for vagueness.

26

2.

For attorney’s fees to the extent permitted by law;

27

3.

For the preliminary and permanent injunctive relief as set forth above;

28

4.

For costs of suit; and

5.

Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
15
COMPLAINT

1

Respectfully submitted,

2

DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP

3
4
5
6

Date: December 23, 2008

By: /s/Kent J. Schmidt ___________
KENT J. SCHMIDT
ZACHARY BULTHUIS
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NATIONAL MEAT ASSOCIATION

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
16
COMPLAINT