Opinion ID: 175339
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: All Claims Against QAI are Preempted

Text: QAI certified Aurora as an organic supplier and never suspended or revoked the certification. [4] Aurora's certification allows it to sell or label products using the OFPA Terms without penalty. See § 6519(a). The penalty for knowingly selling or labeling a product as organic without certification is $10,000. Id. The decision to certify rests with the certification agent, and the OFPA sets forth an administrative procedure for appeals of the certification agent's decisions. See § 6520(a). Even a cursory review of the OFPA reveals the nationalization of the decision to certify businesses in order to carry out the statute's purposes. The method the OFPA uses to achieve its purpose is to allow some producers of agricultural products (those that comply with all the requirements set forth in the OFPA and NOP) to sell and label their goods as organic and to prohibit others from doing so. The OFPA achieves this objective by certifying agricultural operations to use the OFPA Terms to sell or label their products. The certifying agents decide whether to certify a particular businesswhether they may or may not sell or label their products as organic. The district court correctly decided, to the extent state law permits outside parties, including consumers, to interfere with or second guess the certification process, the state law is an obstacle to the accomplishment of congressional objectives of the OFPA. This court's decision in Pet Quarters is in accord. See Pet Quarters, 559 F.3d at 780 (Accordingly, any of Pet Quarters's state law claims that challenge the existence or operation of the program or its rules are federally preempted.). The district court dismissed the class plaintiffs' claims against QAI because the claims directly contradict the OFPA and NOP. After reviewing the claims against QAI, the district court reasoned [e]ssentially, Plaintiffs are asserting that ... QAI should have revoked ... Aurora's certifications. A review of each of the counts reveals all the claims against QAI challenge conduct the OFPA and NOP contemplated QAI would undertake in executing its responsibilities pursuant to the statute. As the district court analyzed in detail, it would be impossible, on the one hand, for QAI to comply with the OFPA and its regulations, which detail the process for revoking certifications, and, on the other hand, to comply with any additional state law duty and process to revoke certifications. The class plaintiffs argue Congress's inclusion of a provision in the OFPA stating that certifying agents must agree to hold the [USDA] harmless for any failure on the part of the certifying agent to carry out the provisions of this chapter amounts to a recognition that subjecting certifying agents like QAI to liability does not conflict with the purposes of the OFPA. See 7 U.S.C. § 6515(e)(1). Section 6515 sets forth various requirements necessary for accreditation as a certifying agent, including, among other things, the ability to implement the requirements, employment of sufficient inspectors, and rules regarding record keeping and access, confidentiality, and conflicts. See generally § 6515. One of those requirements is the hold harmless provision. Under § 6515(e)(1), QAI is required to hold the USDA harmless from all claims arising out of QAI's failure to carry out the program. The most likely claims to be brought against a certifying agent (at least from the perspective of Congress) probably were not consumer claims such as those at issue here, but claims arising from denials of certification to agricultural businesses. Not surprisingly, § 6515(e)(2) requires agents to furnish reasonable security... for the purpose of protecting the rights of participants in the applicable organic certification program.... While § 6515(e) may be effective, vis-à-vis QAI, against an otherwise successful consumer protection claim against the USDA, the intent of the provision was not to create, and does not support an argument for, authorizing such a claim against QAI. Lastly, the class plaintiffs suggest QAI misled the organic milk consuming public when it allowed its mark of excellence seal to be affixed to Aurora's milk. But the mark of excellence is nothing more than a mark identifying QAI as the certifying agent, which generally is required pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 205.303(b)(2) (Agricultural products ... must ... identify the name of the certifying agent that certified the handler of the finished product and may display the business address, Internet address, or telephone number of the certifying agent in such label.), and specifically allowed by § 205.303(a)(5) (Agricultural products ... may display ... [t]he seal, logo, or other identifying mark of the certifying agent which certified the production or handling operation producing the finished product.). This argument has no merit. Because all of the class plaintiffs' claims against QAI stand in conflict with the OFPA, we affirm QAI's dismissal as a party to this lawsuit.