## I n the U nited S tates Cour t of Feder al Claim s
No . 1 3 -5 1 9 C (Fi l edSep t em

b er 1 8 , 2 0 1 4 )

* * * * * * * * * * * * * DIM ARE FRESH, INC., etal .,

Pla i n t if f s ,

v . THE UNITED STATES,

Def en d an t

. * * * * * * * * * * * No Pl au s i b l e Cl ai m s fo r Reg u l at o ry Tak i n g s Ari s i n g fro m W arn i n g s t o Co n s um ers o f a Po s s i b l e Li n kb et ween To m at o es an dSal m o n el l a Ou tb reak

.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
M. St ep h en Tu rner , Tal l ah as s ee, FL, fo r p l ai n t iffs

. Er i c E. La u

f gr a b en , Un i t edSt at es Dep art m en to f J u s t i ce, wi t h wh o m were St u a r t F. Del er y , As s i s t an tAt to rn ey

Gen eral , Ro ber t

E. Ki r s ch ma n , Jr

. , Di rect o r, Fr a nkl in E. W

h i te, Jr

. , As s i s t an tDi rect o r, W as h i n gt o n, DC, fo r d efen d an t

. Da r iet a M

. Ha wki n s , Un i t ed St at es Dep art m en to f Heal t h an dHu m an Serv i ces Offi ce o f Gen eral Co u ns el , W as h i n g t o n , DC, o f co u n s el

.

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ OPI NI ON

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ Bus h , S en i o r Ju d ge . Cu rren t ly b efo re t he co u rti s d efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n t o d is m i ss th e co m p l ai n t b ro u gh t u n d er Ru l e 1 2 (b )(6 ) o f t h e Ru les o f t h e Un it edSt at es Co u rt o f Fed eral Cl ai m s (RCFC). Th e m o t i o n h as b een fu l l y b ri efed , an do ral arg u m en twas n ei t h erreq u es t edb y th e p art i es n o r d eem edn eces saryb y th e co u rt

. Fo r t h e reas on s s t at ed b el o w, d efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n i s g ran t ed

. BACKGROUND 1
I . W a rni ng the Publ i c No t to Buy Certa in To m a to es Pl ai n t i ffs are “ gro w ers , p ack ers , an ds h i p p ers o f t om at o es i n Fl ori d a an d So u th Geo rg i a.” Co m

p l . at2 . Th e Fo o dan dDru g Adm i n i s t rat io n (FDA) res p o n d ed t o an o utb reako f s al m o n el l a-rel at edi l l n es s es i n J u ne 2 0 0 8

. Id

. ¶¶ 8 -1 5

. Two warn i n g s were i s s u edt o th e p ub li c, o n J u n e 3 an d J un e 7 , 2 00 8

. Id

. ¶¶ 9 -1 5

. Th e warn i n g s l i n k edth e s al m o n el l a o u tb reakt o cert ai n t y pes o f t o m at o es
. Id

. Pl ai n t i ffs i n thi s cas e were s ub st an t i al l y i n v es t edi n th e p ro du ct i on , d i s tri b ut i o n an d b u l ks al e o f t o m at o es atth e t i m e t h e FDA warn i n g s l i n k i n g s al m on el l a an d t o m at o es were i s s ued

. Id

. ¶ 2

. Th e FDA al s o h el da m ed i a b ri efi n g o n J un e 1 3 , 2 0 0 8 , ag ai n l i n ki n g th e s al m o n el l a o u tb reakt o cert ai n t y p es o f t o m at o es . Co m

p l . ¶¶ 1 6-1 9 . Al l o f t h es e warn i n gs h ada b u rd en s o m e effect o n t h e m ark etfo r p l ai nt i ffs ’ t o m at o es
. Id

. ¶ 2 1

. Al th o u g h an y

l i n kb et ween p l ai n t i ffs ’ t om at o es an dthe s al m o n el l a o utb reakwas ev en tu al l y

d is p ro v ed an d t h e FDA l ift edi t s warn i n g ag ai n s t t o m at o es o n J u l y 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , al l o r al m o s tal l o f t h e v al u e o f p l ai n ti ffs ’ p eri sh ab l e t o m at oes was d es t ro y ed b y th e co l l ap s e i n th e m ark et fo r t o m at o es tri g g eredb y the FDA’ s warn i n gs
. Id

. ¶¶ 6 , 2 0 -2 1 , 2 4 , 3 0 -3 2 , 3 4 , 3 7 . Pl ai n t i ffs ch aract eri ze t h e FDA warn i n g s as reg u l at o ry

t ak i n g s o f th ei r p ro p ert y . Id

. ¶¶ 1 , 3 0-3 1 , 3 5 -4 0

. Acco rd i ng t o p l ai n ti ffs , th e FDA “ h adn o co n fi rm at io n ” o f t h e l i n kb et ween th ei r t o m at o es an dth e s al m o n el l a o u tb reakan dp l ai n t i ffs fu rt h er al l eg e t h atth e FDA’ s an al y s i s o f t h e o u tb reakwas fl awed . Co m p l

. ¶¶ 2 2 -2 3. Pl ai n t i ffs av er t hat th ei r t o m at o es “p res en t edn o d an g er, d efect o r t hreat t o co n s u m ers
. ” Id

. ¶ 2 5

. Pl ai n t i ffs al s o co n t en d t h at t h e FDA d el ay edi t s rev o cat io n o f th e warn i n g s ag ai n s t t o m at o es fo r o v er a m o n t h “ [d ] es p i t e accu m u l at i n g ev i d en ce t o t h e co nt rary .” Id

.

1 / All references to the complaint are to the amended complaint filed April 16, 2014, unless otherwise noted. The facts presented in the complaint are undisputed for the purpose of resolvingdefendant’s motion to dismiss. Def.’s Mot. at 2 n.1. The court makes no finding s of fact in this opinion. 2¶ 2 2.

I I . Ex cerpts fro m the FDA W a rni ng s I s s ued o n J une 3 a nd J une 7 , 2 0 0 8 Pl ai n t i ffs at t ach edthe FDA warn i n g s t o th ei r co m p lai n t. Th e warn i n g i s su edo n J u n e 3 , 2 0 0 8 s t at edi n rel ev an tp artth at :

Th e Fo o d an d Dru g Adm i ni s t rat i o n i s al ert i ng co n s u m ers i n New M ex i co an dTex as th ata s al m o n el l o si s o u tb reak ap p ears t o b e l i nk edt o co ns u m p t i o n o f cert ai n t y

p es o f raw redt o m at o es an dp ro du ct s co nt ai n in g raw red t o m at o es
. . . . Th e s p eci fi c t y

p e an d s ou rce o f t o m at oes are u nd er i n v es t ig at i o n . Ho w ev er, p rel i m i n ary d at a s u gg es tth at raw redp l u m , redRo m a, o r ro u n d redt om at o es are t he cau s e. At t h i s t im e, co n s u m ers i n New M ex i co an d Tex as s h o u l d l i m i tth ei r t o m at o co n s u m p t i o n t o t o m at o es t h ath av e n o t b een i m

p l i cat edi n th e o u tb reak . Th es e i n cl u d e ch erryt o m at o es , g rap e t o m at o es , t o m at o es s ol d wi t h t h e v i n e s t i l l at t ach ed , an dt o m at o es g ro wnath om e.

. . . . In o rd er t o en s u re t h atco n s u m ers can co n t i n u e t o en jo y t o m at o es th atare s afe t o eat , FDA i s wo rk i n g d il ig en t l y wi t h t h e s t at es , th e Cen ters fo [r] Di seas e Co n t ro l an d Prev en t io n, t he In d i an Heal t h Serv ice, an d v ari ou s fo o d i n dus t ry trad e as s o ci at i o n s t o qu ick l y d et erm i n e t h e s o u rce an dty

p e o f t h e co n t am i n at edt o m at o es . As m o re i n fo rm at i o n b eco m es av ai l ab l e, FDA wi l l up d at e t hi s warn i n g
. Co m p l . Ex . 1

. Th e s eco n dwarn i n g , i s s u edb y th e FDA o n J u n e 7 , 2 0 0 8 , ex pan d edth e ad v is o ry ag ai n s t cert ai n t o m at o es t o co ns u m ers n at io n wi d e. In rel ev an tp art , th i s
3warn i n g s t at edthat : Th e Fo o d an d Dru g Adm i ni s t rat i o n i s ex p an d in g i t s warn i n g t o co n s um ers n at i o n wi d e t h ata s al m o n el lo s i s o utbreakh as b een l i n k edt o co n s um p t i o n o f cert ai n raw redp l u m , redRo m a, an dredro un dt o m at o es , an d p ro du ct s co n t ai n i n g th es e raw, redt o m at o es
. FDA reco m

m en ds th atco n su m ers n o t eatraw redRo m a, raw redp l u m , raw redro u n d t o m at o es , o r p ro du ct s th at co n t ai n th es e t y

p es o f raw red t o m at o es u n les s t he t o m at o es are fro m

th e s o u rces l i s t edb el ow. If u n s ure o f wh ere t o m at o es are g ro wn o r h arv es t ed , co n s u m ers are en co u rag edt o co n t actth e s to re wh ere t h e t om at o p urch as e was m ad e. Co n su m ers s h o ul dco n t i n u e t o eat ch erryt o m at o es , g rap e t o m at o es , an dt o m at o es s o l d wi t h t h e v i ne s ti l l at t ach ed , o r t o m at oes g ro wnat h om e. OnJ u ne 5 , u s i n g traceb ackan d o t h er d i s t ri b u ti o n p at t ern i n fo rm at i o n , FDA p ubl i s h eda l i s to f s t at es , t erri t ori es , an dco u nt ri es wh ere t o m at o es are g ro wnan d h arv es t ed wh i ch ha v e no t been a s s oci a ted w i th thi s o utbrea k . Th is up d at edl i s ti n cl u des : Ark an s as , Cal i fo rn i a, Geo rg ia, Hawai i , No rt h Caro l i n a, So u t h Caro li na, Ten n es see, Tex as , Bel g i u m , Can ad a, Do m i ni can Rep ub l i c, Gu at em al a, Is rael , Neth erl an ds , an dPu ert o Ri co
. . . . FDA reco m

m en ds th atret ai l ers , res t au rat eu rs , an dfo o d s erv i ce o p erat o rs n o t o ffer fo r s al e an d s erv i ce raw red Ro m a, raw red p l u m , an draw redro u n dt o m at o es u nl es s they

are fro m th e s o u rces l i s t ed ab o v e. Ch erry t o m at o es , g rap e t o m at o es , an dt o m at oes s o l d wi t h t h e v in e s t i l l at t ach ed , m ay

co n t i nu e t o b e o ffered fro m an y s o u rce. Co m p l . Ex . 2

. 4I I I . Ex cerpts fro m the FDA Medi a Bri efi ng o n J une 1 3 , 2 0 08

Pl ai n t i ffs p ro v i d e a t w en t y -s i x p ag e t ran s cri p to f t h e FDA m ed i a b ri efi n g h el do n J u ne 1 3, 2 0 0 8 . Th e co u rtreferen ces h ere t h e p ort i on s o f t h is tran s cri p t n eces s ary fo r co n t ex t. Th e p art i ci p an t s were wel co m edt o a b ri efi n g o n t h e FDA’ s
“ s al m on el l a i n t o m at o es i n ves ti g at i o n .” Co m p l . Ex . 3 at1 . An FDA s p o k es m an n o t edth at“ as . . . y et t h ere i s n o s p eci fi c g eo g rap h i c l ocat i o n i den t i fi ed ” fo r t h e t o m at o es th atwere t h e s ou rce o f t h e s al m o n el l a o u tb reak

. Id

. at3

. Ap p aren t l y

Fl o ri d a h adb een th e s ub ject o f m u ch s p ecu lat i o n as a p o s s i b l e s o u rce fo r t h e s al m o n el l a, s o an FDA o ffi ci al ad dres sedth e “ co m p l i cat ed ” i s s u e o f th e s afet y o f Fl o ri d a t o m at o es . Co m p l

. Ex

. 3 at3 (“ I’ m

n o t wan t i n g t o p u t th e fo cu s o n Fl o ri d a s p eci fi cal l y , b u tth i s i s an o p p ortu n it y fo r u s t o ex p l ai n wh atth e s t atu s o f Fl o ri d a i s , b ecau s e i t i s a l i t t l e co m p l i cat ed .”). Part s o f Fl o ri d a were s t il l s u s p ect ed , b u tth e n o rt h ern p arto f Fl o ri d a was ap paren t l y co n s i d ereds afe. Id

. at 4 , 1 8. As fo r o t her p ro du ci ng s t at es , co n s u m ers were u rg edt o co n s i d er t o m at o es o n th e s hel f t h atcam e fro m s t at es d eem eds afe b y t he FDA t o b e s afe fo r p u rch as e an d co n s u m

p t i o n
. Id

. at4 -5

. Wh en as k edwh ere m o s t o f t h e t o m at o es co n s u m edi n th e Un i t edSt at es o ri g i nat edatth e t i m e o f t h e s al m o n el l a o u tb reak , an FDA o ffi ci al s t at edth at M ex i co an dFl o ri d a s up p l i edm o s to f t h o s e t o m at o es . Co m p l . Ex . 3 at8

. Th e o ffi ci al al s o s t at edth ath e t ho u g h ti tu n l i k el y th atth e s al m o n el l a h adco m e fro m two d ifferen t g eo grap h i c l o cat i o n s , b ecau s e o f t h e i d en ti cal g en et i c m at eri al fo u n d i n the s al m o n el l a o u tb reak

. Id

. at9 . Inad d i t i o n , th e o ffi ci al n o tedth atth ere were n o FDA i n v es t i g at o rs trav el i n g t o M ex i co t o i n v es ti g at e t he o u tb reak

. Id

. at1 1

. Th e FDA m ad e i tcl ear t h ati th ad o n l y i s s u eda warn i n g , n o t a recal l, o f t o m at o es fro m s tat es n o ty etl i s t edas s afe. Co m p l

. Ex . 3 at1 2 . Th e l eg al co n seq u en ces o f a warn i n g are t h ats el l ers o f t o m at o es are n o treq u i red t o p u l l th ei r t o m at o es fro m

s t o re s h el v es , ev en i f t h es e t o m at oes o ri g in at edfro m a s t at e s t il l u n d er i n v es ti gat i o n as a p o s s i b l e s o u rce fo r t h e s al m o n el l a. Id

. at 1 3 . In s t ead , th e fo cu s o f t h e FDA warn i n g s was t o edu cat e co n s u m ers ab o u twh i ch t o m at o es were s afe t o eat an dwh i ch were n o ts afe t o eat

. Id

. at1 2 -1 3

. I V. Pro cedure

5Aft er p l ai nt i ffs ’ am en d edco m p l ai n t was fi l edo n Ap ri l 1 6 , 2 0 1 4 , d efen d an t fi led a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s u n d er RCFC 1 2 (b )(6 ) o n M ay 5 , 2 0 1 4 . So o n t h ereaft er, p l ai n t i ffs fi l ed a m o t i o n t o jo i n an ad d i t i o n al p l ai nt i ff, wh i ch was g ran t edb y th e co u rto n M ay

2 7 , 2 0 1 4 . At d efen d an t ’ s req u es t , h o wev er, th e co u rto rd eredth at th e cl ai m s o f t h i s ad d i t i o n al p l ai n t iff b e s ubjectt o t h e g o v ern m en t’ s m ot i o n t o d i s m i s s . Thu s , d efen d an t ’ s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s ad dres s es al l cl ai m s b efo re t h e co u rt i n thi s cas e an di s ri p e fo r d eci si o n
. DI SCUSSI ON
I . J uri sdi cti o n Th e Tu ck er Actd el i n eat es th i s co urt ’ s juri s d i ct i o n. 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 4 9 1 (2 0 1 2). Th i s s t atu t e “ co n fers juri s d i ct i o n up o n th e Co urto f Fed eral Cl ai m s o v er th e s p eci fi edcat eg o ri es o f act i o n s b ro u gh tag ai n s tth e Un i t edSt at es .” Fish er v. Un i ted Sta t es , 4 0 2 F.3 d 1 1 6 7 , 1 1 7 2 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 5 ) ( en b a nc ) (ci tat i on s o m i t t ed ). Th es e i n cl u d e cl ai m s “ fo u n d edei t h er up o n t h e Co n s t i tu t i o n , o r an y Acto f Co n g res s o r an y

reg u l at i o n o f an ex ecu ti ve d ep art m en t , o r up o n an y ex pres s o r i m p l i edco n t ract wi t h th e Un i t edSt at es , o r fo r l i qu i d at edo r u n l i qu i d at ed d am ag es i n cas es n o ts o un d i n g i n t ort .” 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 4 9 1 (a)(1 ).
Th e co u rt m

u s t d et erm i n e, atth e o u t s et , wh et h er p l ai n t i ffs ’ cl ai m s fal l wi th i n th e “ s p eci fi ed cat eg o ri es o f act i o n s b ro u g h tag ai n stth e Un i t ed St at es ” t h at are wi th i n t h i s co u rt ’ s juri s d i ct i o n
. F is h er , 4 02 F.3 d at1 1 7 2 . Th e Tu ck er Act co n cu rren t ly

“ wai v es th e Go v ern m en t ’ s s o verei gn i m m u ni t y fo r th o s e act i on s .” Id

. Ho wev er, i f ju ri s d i ct i o n fo r a cau s e o f act i o n i s l ack i n g t h i s co u rtm u s td i s m i s s th e s u i t . RCFC 1 2 (h )(3 ). Th e co u rtm ay , an ds h ou l d , rai s e t h e i ss u e o f i t s o wn juri s d i ct i o n s u a s

p o n t e wh en i tap p ears i n d o ub t

. Ar ct i c Co rner , In c. v. Un i t ed Sta t es , 8 4 5 F.2 d 9 9 9 , 1 0 00 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 8 8 ) (ci t at i o n o m i t t ed ).
I I . Sta nda rd o f Rev i ew fo r a Mo ti o n Bro ug ht under RCFC 1 2(b)(6 )
It is wel l-s et t l ed t h at a co m p l ai n t s ho u l db e d i s m i s s edu n d er RCFC 1 2 (b )(6 )

“ wh en the fact s as s ert edb y th e cl ai m an t d o n o t en t i t l e h i m t o a l eg al rem ed y .” Li n d sa y v. Un i t ed

Sta t es , 2 9 5 F.3 d1 2 5 2 , 1 2 5 7 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 2 ). Wh en co n si d eri n g a m o t i o n t o d is m i ss fo r fai l u re t o s t at e a cl ai m , “ t h e al l eg at i o ns o f t h e co m p l ai n ts h ou l db e co n s t ru ed fav o rab l y t o t h e p l ead er.” S ch eu er v. Rh o d

es , 4 1 6
6U.S. 2 3 2 , 2 3 6 (1 9 7 4 ), a b r o ga ted o n o ther gr o u n d s b y Ha r l o w v. Fi t

zg er a ld , 4 5 7 U.S. 8 0 0 (1 9 8 2 ). Th e co urtm us tal s o i n qu i re wh et h er t he co m p lai n t m eet s th e p l au s i b i l it y

s t an d ardd es cri b edb y

th e Un it ed St at es Sup rem e Co u rt , i .e. , wh et h er i t ad equat el y

s t at es a cl ai m

an dp ro v i d es a “ s h o wi n g [o f] an y s eto f fact s co n s i s t en t wi th th e al leg at i on s i n th e co m p l ai n t.” B el l

At la n t i c Co r

p . v. Two mb l

y , 5 5 0 U.S. 5 4 4 , 5 6 3 (2 0 0 7) (ci tat i o n s o m i tt ed ).
I I I . Ana l y s i s A. Do Pl a i nti ffs ’ Cl ai m s So und i n To rt?
A co u rt ’ s i n qu iry i n t o th e n atu re o f a p l ai n ti ff’ s cl ai m “ d o es n o ten d wi t h th e wo rd s o f t h e co m

p l ai n t , h o wev er i n s t ru ct i v e t h ey m ay b e, fo r [t h e co u rt ] s t i l l m u s t

‘ lo o k t o th e tru e n atu re o f th e act io n i n d et erm i n i ng th e ex i s t en ce o r n o to f juri s d i ct i o n .’ ” Ja mes v. Ca ld er a , 1 5 9 F.3 d5 7 3 , 5 79 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 98 ) (qu o ti n g Ka t z v. Cis n er os , 1 6 F.3 d1 2 0 4 , 1 2 0 7 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 94 )). Here, p lai n t i ffs i n t h ei r co m p l ai n tav o i dan y m en t i on o f n eg l i g en ce, m i s rep res en t at i o n , o r fai l u re t o o b s erv e a du t y

o f care o n t h e p arto f the FDA. Nev ert h el es s, p l ai n t i ffs ch aract eri ze t h e act i o n s o f t h e FDA as l ack in g “ co n fi rm at io n th atan y t o m at o es were i n v ol v ed i n th e i l ln es s o u tb reak ,” as ev i nci n g “ a l acko f u n d ers t an d i n g o f i n du s try d i s t ri bu t i o n ch an n el s ,” an das “ fai l [i n g ] t o co rrect th e p ubl i c warn i n g s
. . . fo r o v er a m o n t h .” Co m

p l. ¶¶ 2 2 -2 3 . Al t h o ug h p l ai n t i ffs d es cri be t hei r cl ai m s as d em an d i n g ju s tco m

p en sat i on fo r a reg u l at o ry t ak i n g , a m o re o b v io u s l eg al th eo ry o f reco v ery

wo u l dh av e b een t o arg u e t h atth e FDA n eg l i gen t l y m i s rep res en t edth e d an ger o f co n s u m in g p l ai n t i ffs ’ t o m at o es an dth at t h e Un i t edSt at es i s l iab l e t o p l ai n t i ffs as a res u l to f t he g o v ern m en t ’ s n eg l ig en ce. 2
As th e co u rtd i s cu s s es i n

f r a , p lai n t iffs h av e n o tci tedt o an y cas es wh ere a co n su m er warn i ng i s s u edb y a fed eral ag en cy

co n s t i tu t eda reg ul at ory

t ak i ng . A m u ch m o re t y

p i cal an al y s is fo r s u ch a fact ual s cen ari o i s wh et h er an i n accu rat e co n su m er warn i ng o r s o m e o t h er rel eas e o f i n accu rat e i n fo rm at io n tri g g eredt o rt l i ab i l i ty on th e p arto f t h e g o v ern m en t. S ee, e.g
. , Mi

z o ka m i v. Un it ed

Sta t es , 4 1 4 F.2 d1 3 7 5 , 1 3 7 7 -7 8 (Ct

. Cl

. 1 9 6 9 ) (d i s cu s s i n g p o t en t i al t o rt l iab i li t y fo r an

2 / In plaintiffs’ orig inal complaint, the g r owers candidly discussed the barriers to bring ing a tort claim based on the F DA’s warning s; the discretionary nature of the warning s renders the F DA “ty pically immune from tort liability .” Orig . Compl. ¶ 6. 7i n accu rat e n ot i ce o f co n tam i n at i o n i n s p i n ach b y rev i ewi ng cas es wh ere n eg l i g en t m i s rep res en t at i o n s o n t he p arto f t h e g o v ern m en th adb een al leg ed ); Ba n f i Pr o d s
. Co r p . v. Un i t ed

Sta t es , 4 0 Fed . Cl . 1 0 7 , 1 3 9 -4 2 (1 9 9 7) (h ol di n g t h atth e g o v ern m en t ’ s m i s s t at em en t as t o th e d an g er o f a co n tam in an ti n wi n e d idn o tri s e t o the l ev el o f a n eg l i g en treq u es t t o recal l t he wi n e); La n ce In d u s . v. Un i t ed Sta t es , 3 Cl . Ct . 7 6 2, 7 7 5-7 6, 7 7 9 -8 0 (1 9 8 3 ) (h o ld i n g th at t he g o v ern m en t ’ s d i s s em i n at io n o f an i n accu rat e ru m o r reg ard i n g a p h arm aceu t i cal d i dn o ttri g g er l i ab i l i ty fo r n eg l i g en ce); s ee a l s o H.F. Al l en Or ch a rd

s v. Un i t ed Sta t es , 7 4 9 F.2 d 1 5 7 1 , 1 5 7 6 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 8 4 ) (“ [T] h e n eg li g en td i s cl o s u re o f i nfo rm at i o n b y th e g o v ern m en t , wh en th e g ov ern m en th adn o co n tr a ct ua l dut y t o s up pl y s u ch i n fo rm at i o n m ay

s o un di n t o rt .”) (ci tat i on o m i t ted ). Al t h o ug h a t o rt cl ai m fo u n d ed o n th e FDA’ s warn i n g s ati s s ue h ere wo u ld l ik el y h av e b een fu ti l e i f b ro u gh ti n a d i s tri ctco u rtfo r t h e reas o ns s t at edi n p l ai n t i ffs ’ o ri g i n al co m p l ai n t , s ee s u

p r a n o t e 2 , th e fact s al l eg edi n th e am en d edco m p lai n tap p ear t o b e h av e far g reat er res o n an ce i n t o rtjuri sp ru d en ce t h an i n t ak in g s cas es
. Th e co m p l ai n tco u l d b e read ei th er t o p res en t cl ai m s s ou n d i n g i n t o rt , o r t o p res en tcl ai m s wh i ch s eekt o ex t en dthe l i m i t s o f t ak i n g s juri s p ru den ce. Th e co urt wi l l fo l l o w th e p art i es ’ l eadi n rev i ewi n g t he s u ffi ci en cy o f th e t ak in g s cl ai m s p res en t edi n th e co m

p l ai n t , b u t ex pres s es s o m e d o ub t atth e o ut s etas t o i t s juri s d i ct i o n o v er cl ai m s t h at m ig h tm o re accu rat el y b e ch aract eri zedas t o rtcl ai m s
. Th e co u rtn o t es th ati t i s wel l es t ab l i s hedth at i f p l ai n t i ffs ’ cl ai m s are t ru l y t o rt cl ai m s thi s co u rth as n o juri s d i ct i o n o v er t h ei r s u i t . 2 8 U.S.C. § 1 4 9 1 (a)(1 ); S o ma l i Dev. Ba nk v. Un i t ed Sta t es , 5 08 F.2 d 8 17 , 8 2 0 (Ct . Cl . 1 9 7 4 ).
B. Pl a i nti ffs ’ Reg ul a to ry Ta k i ng s Cl a i m s Are No t Pl a us i bl e Pl ai n t i ffs al l eg e th atth e warn i n g s i s su ed b y th e FDA reg ard in g a p o ss i b l e co n nect io n b et w een th ei r t o m at o es an dth e s al m on el l a o utb reak“ cau s edth e l o s s o f al l o r s ub s tan t i al l y

al l th e v al u e o f Pl ai n t iffs ’ p ro p ert y . . . [; ] [t ] h i s act i o n ap p ro p ri at eda b en efi t t o the Go v ern m en tan d t h e p ub li c atth e ex pen s e o f t h e To m at o Farm ers an dPro du cers .” Co m p l . ¶ 3 7 . Thu s, th ey

arg u e th at t h e “ FDA’ s act i on co n s t i tu t es a reg u l at ory t ak i n g o f t h e Pl ai n t i ffs ’ p eri s h ab l e t o m at o es .” Id

. ¶ 3 8. J u s tco m

p en s at i on , b as edo n th e fact t h at“ al l eco n o m ic v al ue was l o s tdu e t o the co l l ap s e o f t h e m ark etfo r [p l ai n t i ffs ’ ] t o m at oes ,” i s al l eg ed l y du e each o f th e p l ai n t i ffs u n der t h e au t h o ri t y o f t h e Fi ft h Am en d m en to f t h e Un i t edSt at es Co n s t i tu t i o n
. Id

. ¶¶ 3 0 , 4 0

. 8Defen d an targ u es th atth e effect o f t he FDA warn i n g s o n th e m ark etfo r

p l ai n t i ffs ’ t o m at o es d o es n o tco n s t i tu t e a reg u l at ory t ak i ng . Th e g o v ern m en trel i es o n cas es wh i ch h av e d en i edt ak i n g s cl ai m s fo u n d edo n p ro n o u n cem en t s b y th e g o v ern m en twh ich , al t h o u g h they m ay h av e cau s edfi nan ci al co n s equ en ces fo r t h e p l ai n t i ffs , l ack edth e req u i s i t e “ l eg al effect ” t o ri s e t o th e l ev el o f a reg u l at o ry t ak i n g
. S ee Def.’ s M o t . at6 (“ Co u rt s ro ut i n el y rejectt ak i n g s cl ai m s wh en , as i n th i s cas e, t h e al l eg edGo v ern m en tact i o n d o es n o th av e an y l eg al effect , n o twi th s t an d i n g an y al l eg at i o n s co n cern i n g th e p ract i cal , fi n an ci al i m p acto f t h e al l eg edact i o n
. ”) (ci t i n g cas es ). Defen d an t ’ s arg u m en ts are p ers u as i v e, an da b ri ef reci tat i o n o f t h e ci t edcas es p ro v es th e p o i n t

. Th i s co u rtco n s i dered a s i m i l ar cl ai m wh ent o b acco v en d in g m ach i n e o wn ers as s ert eda t em

p oraryreg u l at o ry

t ak i n g ari s i n g fro m

the n o t i ce an d p ro m u l gat i o n o f p en di ng FDA reg u l at i o n s b an n in g m o s tt o b acco s al es fro m v en di n g m ach i n es
. A-1 Ci ga ret t e Ven di n g

, In c. v. Un i t ed

Sta t es , 4 9 Fed . Cl . 3 4 5 , 3 4 8 -4 9 (2 0 0 1 ), a

f f’d s u b n o m. Br u b a ker

Amu s emen t Co . v. Un it ed Sta t es , 3 0 4 F.3 d 1 3 4 9 (Fed . Ci r. 2 0 0 2 ). In A-1 Ci ga r et te Ven di ng , l et t ers an dp am p h l et s i n fo rm i n g b u s i n es s es ab o u ti m

pen d i n g t o b acco v en di n g m ach in e reg u l at i o n s d i dn o t co n st i tu t e reg u l at o ry

t ak i n g s b ecau se “ [o ] nl y a Go v ern m en t reg u l at ory actth at actu al l y res t ri ct s p ro pert y

m ay effect u at e a t ak i ng .” Id

. at3 56 & n .1 5 (ci t at i o n s o m it t ed ). Wh enth e Un i t edSt at es Co u rto f Ap peal s fo r t h e Fed eral Ci rcu i t co n si d eredth es e reg u l at o ry t ak i n g s cl ai m s up on ap p eal , the Fed eral Ci rcu i tag reed wi th th e l o w er co u rtan dh el dth att o b acco v en di n g m ach i n e reg u lat i o n s wh i ch h ad n o ty etg o n e i n t o effect d id n o teffect a t ak i n g o f th e p lai n t i ffs ’ p ro p ert y ri g h t s i n v en di n g m ach i n e co n t ract s
. B r u b a ker , 3 0 4 F.3 d at1 3 5 8 . Thu s , p ro n ou n cem en t s an d p ro m u l g at edreg ul at i o ns wh i ch h adn o ty eth adan y l eg al effect o n th e p l ai n t i ffs d i dn o t effect a reg u l at o ry t ak i ng o f t h ei r p ro pert y

i n teres t s
. In an o t h er cas e s o m ewh atan al o g o u s t o the o n e atb ar, th e p ubl i ci zedi n t en t o f Ai r Fo rce o ffi ci al s t o t ak e ad jo i ni n g p ro p ert i es b y

em i n en td o m ai n t o en l arg e an Ai r Fo rce b as e, n ot wi t h s t an d i ng th e co n seq u en ces o f t h es e s t at em en t s o n t h e real es t at e m ark et , was i n s u ffi ci en tt o effect a t ak i n g o f an y p ro p erty ri g h t s o f t h e l an d o wn er p lai n t i ffs i n NBH La n d Co . v. Un i t ed

Sta tes , 5 7 6 F.2 d3 1 7, 3 1 9 (Ct . Cl

. 1 9 7 8 ). In y etan o t h er cas e, a Fed eral Av i at i o n Adm i n i s t rat i o n (FAA)

“ Det erm i n at i o n o f Hazard t o Ai r Nav i g at io n ,” wh i ch d et erm i n edth ata p ro p o s ed b u i l d i n g n ear an ai rp o rtru n way wo u ldcreat e a h azard , was n o tfo u n dt o b e a reg u l at o ry

t ak i n g b ecau se t he ru l i n g was ad v i s ory an dd i d n o taffect th e p ro p ert y
9o wn er’ s l eg al ri g h tt o co n s t ru cta b u i ld i n g o n i t s p ro p ert y . Fl o wer s Mi l l As s o cs
. v. Un i ted Sta t es , 2 3 Cl . Ct . 1 8 2 , 1 8 9 -9 0 (1 9 9 1 ). Bo t h o f t h es e cas es s ho w th atp ub l i c s t at em en t s b y go v ern m en t o ffi ci al s are n ots u ffi ci en t , b y them s el v es , t o effect a reg u l at o ry

t ak i n g , ev en i f t h es e s t at em en t s p ro fo un d ly affect th e m ark etfo r t h e p l ai n t i ffs ’ p ro p ert ies

. Fl o wer s Mi l l i s p art i cu l arl y

i n s t ru ct i v e b ecau s e o f t he ad v i s o ry n atu re o f t he

“ Det erm i n at i o n o f Hazard ” i s s u edb y t h e FAA. As th e co u rt n o t ed , th ere m i g h t i n d eedb e g reat eco n om i c i m pact o n th e p ro pert y

o wn er b ecau s e o f t h e p ub l i ci zed ru l i n g o f t h e FAA. Fl o wer s Mi l l , 2 3 Cl . Ct . at1 8 9 . Th e co u rtrem ark ed , t o o , that th e FAA’ s “ Det erm i n at i on o f Hazard ” co u l d“ i n t erfere wi th [t h e p l ai n t i ff’ s ] d i s t i n ct , i n v es t m en t -b ack edex pect at i o ns .” Id

. No net h el es s , th e co urtco n cl u d ed th at“ th e FAA act io n can n o tb e t h e b as i s o f a Fi ft h Am en d m en tt ak i n g b ecau s e o f th e v o lu n t ary

n atu re o f th e reg u l at o ry

s ch em e.” Id

. (ci tat i on o m i t ted ). Th e s u m m ary o f t h e h ol d i n g i n th atcas e p ro v i d es a co n ci s e reject io n o f reg u l at o ry t ak i n g s cl ai m s wh i ch are fo un d edo n warn i n g s p ro v id edt o th e p ub l ic wh i ch are m erel y ad v i s o ry i n n atu re: Pl ai n t i ff’ s t ak i ng cl ai m

i s b as edo n th e p ract i cal effect o f t h e FAA [Det erm i n at i o n o f Hazardt o Ai r Nav i g at i o n ]

. Wh i l e t h ere m ay

b e p ract i cal co n s equ en ces t o an FAA fi n d in g o f h azard wh i ch p res en to b st acl es t o d es i red d ev el o p m en t(e.g

. , ad v ers e i m p acto n av ai lab i l i t y

o f fi n an ci n g an dcas u al t y

i n s u ran ce co v erag e), th e FAA d et erm i nat i o n i s ad v i so ry o nl y an dh as n o en fo rceab l e l eg al effect . Fo r t h i s reas on i tcan n o tb e co n si dered th e t y pe o f g o v ern m en t al act io n n eces s ary t o s u s t ai n a Fi ft h Am en dm en tt ak i n g cl ai m . Acco rd i n g l y , p l ai n t i ff h as fai l edt o s t at e a cl ai m

up o n wh i ch rel i ef ag ai n s t th e Un i t edSt at es can b e g ran t ed

. Fl o wer s Mi l l , 2 3 Cl . Ct . at1 8 3

. Th u s , fro m t h es e cas es ci t edb y th e g ov ern m en ta g en eral p ri n ci pl e o r ru l e m ay b e d i s cern ed . A reg u l at o ry t ak i n g s cl ai m

i s n otp l au si b l e an dcan no tp ro ceed wh en th e g o v ern m en t act io n ati s s u e h as n o l eg al effect o n th e p l ai n t iff’ s p ro p ert y i n t eres t . Advi so ry

p ro n o u n cem en t s , ev en t ho s e wi t h s i gn i fi can tfi n an ci al i m p act
10o n th e m ark et p l ace, are n o t en o u g h t o effect a t ak i n g o f p ro p ert y u n d er th e Fi ft h Am en d m en t

. Pl ai n t i ffs ’ at tem

pt s t o d i s p ro v e o r es cap e t h i s ru l e are u nav ai l i n g . Fi rs t , p l ai n t i ffs s t at e t h at t h e FDA’ s ad v i s o ri es reg ard i n g th ei r t o m at o es were
“ equ i v al en t[i n effect ] t o a h o l do n s al es o f t h e t o m at o es u n ti l t hey p eri s hed .” Pl s .’ Res p. at1 3 (ci ti ng Y

an cey v. Un i t ed

Sta t es , 9 1 5 F.2 d 1 5 3 4 , 1 5 3 9 -4 3 (Fed . Ci r. 1 9 9 1 )). Th e co u rtcan no tag ree. Th ere was n o b an o n th e s al e o f p l ai n t i ffs ’ t o m at o es equ i v al en tt o the q u aran t i n e o f p o u l try ati s su e i n Y

a n cey . Th ere i s an o b v i o u s d i s t i n ct io n b etween an ad v i s o ry an n o un cem en twh ich affect s m ark ets al es an d a quaran t i n e wh i ch p ro h i b i t s s al es . Pl ai n ti ffs h av e fai l edt o al l eg e an y p l au s i b l e l eg al effect o n thei r p ro p ert y i n t eres t s o ccas i o n edb y t h e FDA ad v i s o ri es
. Seco n d , p l ai n ti ffs at t em

p tt o d i s t i n g u is h th e FDA’ s ad vi so ry fu n ct i o n reg ard i n g fo ods afet y

fro m t h e cas es ci t edb y

d efen dan twh ich i n v o l ved ad v i s o ri es o r s t at em en t s i s s u edb y

th e g o v ern m en t t h ath adn o l eg al effect . Pl ai n ti ffs al l eg e, fo r ex am p l e, t h atth e FDA “ h adthe p ower t o s ei ze t h e t o m at o es o r en jo i n t h ei r s al e, o r b ri n g cri m i n al p ro ceed i n g s , an dp res u m ab l y wo u l du s e th i s p o w er i f i t s warn i n gs were n o tres p ect ed .” Pl s .’ Res p . at1 8 n .5 . Th e co m p l ai n td o es n o t al l eg e, h o wev er, th at t h e FDA ex erci s edan y o f t h es e p o wers t o effect th e t ak i n g o f p l ai n t i ffs ’ t o m at o es . On l y th e FDA ad v i s o ri es are b l am edfo r t h e t ak i ng o f p l ai n t i ffs ’ p ro p ert y

i nt eres t s . Co m

p l . ¶¶ 3 2 , 3 7

. Th es e FDA ad v i s o ri es fal l wi t h i n th e ru l e o f g ov ern m en t act i on s th ath av e n o l eg al effect o n p ro p ert y i n t eres t s an d th atd o n o tco n s t i tu t e reg u l at o ry t ak i n gs
. Th i rd , p lai n t i ffs arg u e th ati ti s n o t n eces sari l y l eg al effect , b u tp ract i cal co n seq u en ces th atcan creat e a t ak i n g
. S ee Pl .’ s Res p . at1 4 (“ Th e p ro p er fo cu s i s o n p ract i cal cau se an deffect . If g o v ern m en tact i o n i s ‘ fu n ct i o nal l y equ i v al en t ’ t o a p h y s i cal s ei zu re, i tcan b e a t ak i n g .”) (ci t at i o n o m i t ted ). In p l ai n t i ffs ’ v i ew,
“ [g ] o vern m en tact i o n th ati n t en d s t o an dfo res eeab l y d o es cau s e l o s s o f p ro p ert y v al u e can b e a t ak i n g ev en i f n o tl eg al l y co erci v e.” Id

. (ci t at i o n s o m i t t ed ). Fu rt h erm o re, acco rd i n g t o p l ai n t i ffs , th e FDA ad v i s o ri es were co erci v e, at l eas tt o s o m e d eg ree:

Th e FDA’ s act i on s o b v i ou s l y h ada co erci ve effect o n t h e m ark et , ev en i f n o tco erci v e ag ai n s tan y th i rdp ers o n i n p art i cu l ar. Wh i l e t h e g ov ern m en twarn i ng co n t i n u ed

11i n effect , n o o ne wo u l dri s kb uy i ng s u ch t o m at o es fo r res al e t o th e p ubl ic. . . . Ev en i f t h e g o v ern m en t ’ s act i o n i s v i ewedas i n s t i gat i n g a b o y co t tb y p o t en t i al b u y ers , th e i n t en d edan dd i rect res u l t (a m ark et s hu t d o wn ) was t an tam o u n t t o co erci o n , as [t h e] FDA knew t h atn o o n e wo u ld as s u m e th e ri s ko f b u y i n g o r s el l i ng fo o du n d er i ts warn i n g
. Id

. at1 4 n .3

. Un fo rtu n at el y

fo r p l ai n t i ffs , th ei r at t em p tt o ev i s cerat e t h e ru l e t h atm u s tb e d i s cern edi n B r u b a ker , NBH La n d , A-1 Ci ga ret t e Ven di n g an d Fl o wer s Mi l l i s u n s upp o rt edb y

rel ev an tau th o ri t y . Th e cas es ci t edb y d efen dan ts p eci fi cal l y d em o n s trat e t h atp ub l i c s t at em en t s an dad vi s o ri es b y th e g ov ern m en tare n o t reg u l at o ry

t ak i n g s i f t hey

h av e n o l eg al effect o n p ro p ert y i n t eres t s . No n e o f p l ai n t i ffs ’ ci tedcas es ad dres s th i s i ss u e, an dp l ai nt i ffs ’ at t em pt s t o d i s t i n g u i s h d efen d an t ’ s cas es , Pl s
. ’ Res p
. at1 6 -1 8 , are n o t p ers u as i v e. Fi n al l y , th e co u rtm

u s tag ree wi t h d efen d an tth atp l ai n t iffs ’ reg u l at o ry t ak i n g s cl ai m s wo u l dreq ui re “ i n d ep en d en tact io n s o f co n s u m ers [an dret ai l ers d ecl i ni n g t o b u y

p l ai n t i ffs ’ t o m at o es ] t o b e at t ri b u t edt o th e Go vern m en t .” Def.’ s Rep ly at1 3 . Th e co u rti s aware o f n o cas el aw wh i ch wo u l ds up po rts u ch a t h eo ry o f reco v ery . Al t h o u g h a wi d e ran g e o f g o v ern m en tact i o n s m ay g i v e ri s e t o reg u l at o ry

t ak i n g s , p lai n t i ffs h av e n o tci tedan y cas es wh i ch h ol dth atp res s rel eas es an d co n s u m er ad v i s o ri es , b y th em s el ves , can co n st i tu t e reg u l at o ry t ak i n g s . Pl ai n t i ffs ’ reg u l at o ry t ak i n g s cl ai m s m u s tb e d i sm i s s edfo r fai l ure t o s t at e a cl ai m up o n wh i ch rel i ef m ay

b e g ran t ed

. CONCLUSI ON
Acco rd i ng l y , i ti s h ereb y ORDERED that : (1 ) Defen d an t ’ s M o ti o n t o Di sm i s s, fi l edM ay 5 , 2 0 14 , i s GRANTED ; (2 ) Th e Cl erk ’ s Offi ce i s d i rect edt o ENTER fi n al ju dg m en t i n fav o r o f d efen d an t , DI SMI SSI NG th e co m p l ai n twi th p reju d i ce; an d

12(3 ) No co s t s
.
/ s /Ly n n J . Bu s h LYNN J . BUSH Sen i o r Ju d g e

13