Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06578/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06578-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 07:2321 Plant Variety Protection Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

 Mike Johanns has been substituted for his predecessor Ann 1

Veneman pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE CALIFORNIA AVOCADO ) 

COMMISSION, et al., )

 )

Plaintiffs, )

 )

vs. )

 )

MIKE JOHANNS, Secretary of the ) 1

United States Department of )

Agriculture, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

 )

 ) 

No. CV-F-01-6578 REC SMS

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AS

MOOT. 

Plaintiffs, four California avocado growers and an agency

created by the state of California that purports to represent the

interests of California’s approximately 6,000 commercial avocado

growers and their 21,000 employees, challenge the promulgation of

two final rules - the Original Avocado Rule and the Avocado

Expansion Rule - by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (“APHIS”) of the United States Department of Agriculture

 

Case 1:01-cv-06578-REC -SMS Document 103 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

(“USDA”). The challenged APHIS rules permitted the regulated

importation of Hass avocados from the Mexican state of Michoacan

into specified regions of the United States.

On November 18, 2002, the Court heard the parties’ cross

motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication of

Plaintiffs’ claims. On January 14, 2004, the Court issued an

order dismissing as moot Plaintiffs’ challenge to the Original

Avocado Rule. Upon further consideration, the Court dismisses as

moot Plaintiffs’ challenge to the Avocado Expansion Rule. 

I. Undisputed Factual Background

The Mexican Hass avocado was subject to a ban on import to

the contiguous United States from 1914 to 1997 under federal

plant quarantine laws and regulations. On November 15, 1994,

APHIS published an advance notice of a proposed rule-making in

the Federal Register, announcing that it had received a request

from the Government of Mexico to allow importation of Hass

avocados from the Mexican state of Michoacan.

The Original Avocado Rule was promulgated under the

authority of the Plant Quarantine Act of 1912. Following the

solicitation of comments on the advanced notice, a proposed rule

was published and APHIS prepared risk analysis documents and an

Environmental Assessment. APHIS concluded that the likelihood of

pest introduction into the United States would be reduced to a

negligible level if the mitigation measures set forth in the

Original Avocado Rule were applied. After a 180-day period for

public comment, the submission of written comments, and public

Case 1:01-cv-06578-REC -SMS Document 103 Filed 05/18/05 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

hearings, APHIS published a final rule on February 5, 1997 (the

“Original Avocado Rule”). The Original Avocado Rule allowed,

subject to certain conditions, the importation of Hass avocados

from November through February into 19 central and northern

states and the District of Columbia. 

APHIS received another request from the Government of Mexico

to expand the scope of avocado importation. A new authorizing

statute, the Plant Protection Act, was in effect when the request

was received and remains in effect today. APHIS, via the notice

and comment rule-making procedures, amended the Original Avocado

Rule on November 1, 2001. The amended regulation, the “Avocado

Expansion Rule,” was published at 7 C.F.R. § 319.56-2ff. It

expanded the area of distribution to include 12 more states and

it lengthened the shipping season to October 15 through April 15. 

II. Procedural Background

Plaintiffs’ complaint challenges the legality of both the

Original Avocado Rule and the Avocado Expansion Rule, arguing

that both rules were promulgated in excess of the USDA’s

statutory authority, were arbitrary and capricious based on the

administrative record and were contrary to the USDA’s general

quarantine. Plaintiffs also argue that the USDA violated the

National Environmental Policy Act because it failed to prepare an

environmental impact statement for either rule.

As mentioned, on January 14, 2004, the Court dismissed as

moot Plaintiffs’ challenge to the Original Avocado Rule. The

Court found that the Avocado Expansion Rule superseded the

Case 1:01-cv-06578-REC -SMS Document 103 Filed 05/18/05 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

Original Avocado Rule and that, accordingly, the Original Avocado

Rule was incapable of harming Plaintiffs. 

III. Recent Developments

On May 24, 2004, APHIS published an advance notice of a

proposed rule-making in the Federal Register. 69 Fed. Reg.

69749, 69749 (Nov. 30, 2004). The proposal was to amend the

regulations governing the importation of Hass avocados from

Michoacan, Mexico to, inter alia, expand the number of states

into which the avocados could be imported and to allow

distribution all months of the year. Id. The action was

proposed both in response to a request by the Government of

Mexico and based on APHIS’ determination that the phytosanitary

measures provided by the rule would reduce the risk of

introduction of plant pests associated with Mexican Hass avocados

in the United States.

APHIS solicited comments for a 60 day period that ended on

July 23, 2004, and the risk assessment was updated based on the

comments received. Id. Ultimately, APHIS estimated with 95

percent confidence that fewer that 387 infested avocados would

enter the United States under the new rule. However, APHIS also

noted that no pests have been discovered in 6 years of 

inspections that included the examination of over 10 million

avocados. Id. Based in part on this data as well as on

statistical models, APHIS concluded that “it is slightly more

likely that zero infested avocados will enter the United States

than one infested avocado.” Id.

Case 1:01-cv-06578-REC -SMS Document 103 Filed 05/18/05 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

The final rule went into effect on January 31, 2005. As

amended, it provides that fresh Hass avocados may be imported

pursuant to restrictions from Michoacan, Mexico into all states

except California, Florida and Hawaii. 7 C.F.R. § 319.56-2ff

(2005). The regulation further provides that after January 31,

2007, fresh Hass avocados may be imported into all states. Id. 

IV. Mootness

Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts have

jurisdiction only over cases and controversies. Public Util.

Comm’n v. F.E.R.C., 100 F.3d 1451, 1458 (9th Cir. 1996). A case

becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or

the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” 

Id. (quoting Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481, 102 S. Ct. 1181,

71 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1982)). A key inquiry is whether a court is

“able to grant effective relief.” Id. (citing GTE California,

Inc. v. FCC, 39 F.3d 940, 945 (9th Cir. 1994)); McBride Cotton &

Cattle Corp. v. Veneman, 290 F.3d 973, 982 (9th Cir. 2002).

Here, APHIS followed the notice and comment procedures for

rule-making required by the Administrative Procedures Act. 5

U.S.C. §§ 551(5), 553. Under those procedures, an amended rule

as promulgated is final and supersedes the earlier rule. 

Accordingly, the Avocado Expansion Rule ceased having legal

effect on January 31, 2005, when the New Avocado Rule became

effective. As was the case with respect to the Original Avocado

Rule, the Court cannot grant relief from an inoperative rule. 

See Doc. 89 at 7. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ challenge to the

Case 1:01-cv-06578-REC -SMS Document 103 Filed 05/18/05 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

Avocado Expansion Rule is moot and the Court dismisses the

remainder of the complaint on the grounds that the Court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction. See Sannon v. United States, 631

F.2d 1247, 1250-51 (5th Cir. 1980) (stating “[t]hat newly

promulgated regulations immediately applicable to litigants in a

given case can have the effect of mooting what once was a viable

case is without doubt”). 

ACCORDINGLY, the remainder of Plaintiffs’ complaint is

DISMISSED AS MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

ia40ij UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06578-REC -SMS Document 103 Filed 05/18/05 Page 6 of 6