Iowa Pork Producers Ass'n v. Bonta

ORDER DECLINING TO EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION OF PENDING MOTION; GRANTING REQUEST TO EXPAND PAGE LIMITS IN PART; AND REQUIRING REFILING AND RE-NOTICING OF MOTION

Plaintiff in this case challenges the constitutionality and seeks to prevent the enforcement of California Health & Safety Code § 25990, et seq., which California voters most recently amended through passage of Proposition 12 back on November 16, 2018 (“Proposition 12”). Among other things, Proposition 12 prohibits the sale of “whole pork meat” from a “covered animal” that was confined in a “cruel manner” or is the immediate offspring of a covered animal that was confined in a cruel manner. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25900. The statute defines “confined in a cruel manner” to include confining any animal in a manner that “prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending the animal's limbs, or turning around freely.” Id. at § 25901. In a provision that explicitly does not take effect until after December 31, 2021, the law also includes “confining a breeding pig with less than 24 square feet of usable floorspace per pig” within the definition of “confined in a cruel manner.” Id. Plaintiff seeks

injunctive and declaratory relief based on the allegation that Proposition 12, including its enforcement provisions, violates the Due Process Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Commerce Clause, and is preempted by Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. § 193 et seq. (Doc. No. 1.)

The instant complaint was originally filed in Fresno County Superior Court on November 9, 2021; defendants removed the matter to this federal court on November 16, 2021. (Doc. No. 1.) On November 22, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction supported by a 42-page memorandum of points and authorities, along with approximately 400 pages of supporting declarations and exhibits. (See Doc. Nos. 15-15-6.) Plaintiff urges the court to accept the overlength brief (see Doc. No. 14), which necessarily will engender overlength opposition and reply briefs; to set a hearing on the matter for December 17, 2021; and to rule on their motion for preliminary injunction before January 1, 2022, the effective date of some of Proposition 12's provisions. (See Doc. No. 15.) Considering the ongoing and well-documented judicial resource emergency in this court, and given that the parties have not all consented to the jurisdiction of the assigned magistrate judge, plaintiff's request would be nearly impossible to accommodate. (See Doc. No. 4-3 (“Order of Clarification” issued by Eastern District of California Chief Judge Kimberly J. Mueller)).

Even if the court could muster the resources to address the pending motion on the expedited timeline suggested by plaintiff, the undersigned declines to urgently prioritize this matter vis-à-vis the numerous other civil litigants who have been waiting many months (if not years) for rulings on important matters. It is undisputed that Proposition 12 passed in November 2018. (See Doc. No. 15-1 at 12.) Some of the provisions challenged here went into effect later that year. (Id.) Certain other...