Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Ass'n des Eleveurs de Canards et d Oies du Quebec v. Harris

United States District Court for the Central District of California

July 14, 2020, Decided; July 14, 2020, Filed

2:12-cv-05735-SVW-RZ

Opinion

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS [*2]  ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [215] , DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [214], AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [216]

Plaintiffs have moved for reconsideration of this Court's previous Order, dkt. 212, and for summary judgment on their first cause of action for declaratory relief. Defendants have again moved to dismiss the complaint and opposed both the summary judgment and reconsideration motion. For the reasons provided below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment but DENIES Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED.

I. Background

The facts of this case have been outlined extensively in this Court's three previous Orders and in two appellate Opinions from the Ninth Circuit. See Ass'n Des Éleveurs De Canards et D'Oies Du Québec v. Harris, No. 2:12-CV-05735-SVW-RZ, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191741, 2012 WL 12842942, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2012) ("Canards District I"), aff'd, Ass'n des Eleveurs de Canards et d'Oies du Quebec v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2013) ("Canards I"); Ass'n des Eleveurs de Canards et D'Oies du Quebec v. Harris, 79 F. Supp. 3d 1136, 1138 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ("Canards District II"), rev'd in part, vacated in part sub nom. Ass'n des Éleveurs de Canards et d'Oies du Quebec v. Becerra, 870 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2017) ("Canards II"); Ass'n des Eleveurs de Canards et d Oies du Quebec v. Harris, No. 2:12-CV-05735-SVW-RZ, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24740, 2020 WL 595440 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2020) ("Canards District [*3]  III").

In 2012, California enacted California Health and Safety Code § 25982 ("§ 25982"), which states in pertinent part: "A product may not be sold in California if it is the result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size." Force feeding is defined as "a process that causes the bird to consume more food than a typical bird of the same species would consume voluntarily. Force feeding methods include, but are not limited to, delivering feed through a tube or other device inserted into the bird's esophagus." Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25980. Most recently, this Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. Canards District III, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24740, 2020 WL 595440, at *6. The Court also denied Plaintiffs' motion for declaratory relief without prejudice and gave Plaintiffs another opportunity to request declaratory relief based on more specific factual allegations. Plaintiffs have now moved for reconsideration of this Court's dormant Commerce Clause analysis, and moved for declaratory relief based on a specifically alleged factual scenario.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131895 *

Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d'Oies du Quebec et al v. Kamala J Harris et al.

Subsequent History: Appeal filed, 09/10/2020

Prior History: Ass'n des Eleveurs de Canards et d Oies du Quebec v. Harris, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24740 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 14, 2020)

CORE TERMS

foie, gras, reconsideration, ban, declaratory, out-of-state, commerce, Seller, force-feeding, feeding, scenario