Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03239/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03239-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3239

___________

Douglas Voss; Elizabeth Voss; *

Arthur Voss; E. Berniece Voss, *

* Appeal from the United States

Appellants, * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Saint Martin Cooperative, et al., *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 6, 2010

Filed: May 25, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The Voss family, organic dairy farmers in rural Minnesota, commenced this

damage action alleging that defendants’ unlawful application of chemical pesticides

on a neighboring farm caused the chemicals to drift and to damage the Vosses and

their property. Liberally construed, the pro se complaint alleged a federal cause of

action for a labeling violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq., and a state law cause of action for violation of

Minn. Stat. § 18B.07, subd. 2. The district court dismissed the entire complaint

without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because “it is well-settled that

FIFRA does not provide for a private right of action.” 

Appellate Case: 09-3239 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2010 Entry ID: 3667796
-2-

We agree that FIFRA does not provide a private right of action to farmers and

others injured as a result of a manufacturer’s violation of FIFRA’s labeling

requirements. See Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 448 (2005); No

Spray Coalition, Inc. v. City of New York, 351 F.3d 602, 605 (2nd Cir. 2003);

Cottrell, Ltd. v. Biotrol Intern., Inc., 191 F.3d 1248, 1255 (10th Cir. 1999) (FIFRA is

exclusively enforced by EPA); Almond High School v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 768

F.2d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 1985). However, the Vosses expressly pleaded a cause of

action arising under this federal statute. Therefore, the district court erred in

concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the

appropriate disposition is to dismiss the federal claim for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and to decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claim, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Accordingly, the district court is directed to enter an amended judgment

providing that the federal claim for violation of FIFRA is dismissed with prejudice

and the balance of the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. As so modified, the

judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3239 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2010 Entry ID: 3667796