Doe v. United States Food and Drug Administration

Background

The plaintiff, an attorney representing himself, alleged that he suffered health problems after consuming large amounts of seafood from 2016 through 2020. He claimed that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should have issued a regulation requiring grocery stores and seafood producers to warn consumers about mercury risks. He also sued Trader Joe’s, Safeway, and Target for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, alleging that they failed to provide information about mercury risks.

The plaintiff alleged symptoms beginning in 2018, including neuromuscular problems, numbness, fatigue, pain, and memory and speech difficulties. He also alleged that a 2020 hair test showed a mercury level more than three times the stated normal range. The opinion says that he had not received a definite diagnosis of mercury poisoning.

Claims Against the FDA

The FDA moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

The court held that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing. Standing requires an injury in fact, a connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a court decision will remedy the injury. The court found that the complaint did not attribute the plaintiff’s symptoms to eating fish, did not identify a diagnosis or efforts to rule out other causes, and did not connect his physical condition to the FDA’s 2017 decision not to pursue rulemaking. The court also found that the requested labeling would not redress his physical problems because the alleged chain of events—including the FDA adopting a rule and the plaintiff changing his seafood purchases—was speculative.

The court further held that, even if the plaintiff had standing, he did not state a claim. The plaintiff relied on the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, but the court held that private plaintiffs may not sue to enforce violations of that statute. The plaintiff suggested treating the claim as one under the Administrative Procedure Act, but he had not pleaded such a claim. The court also said that the FDA’s 2017 decision to pursue public education rather than rulemaking was not arbitrary and capricious, and that the statute gave the FDA discretion to issue regulations rather than requiring it to do so.

Claims Against the Grocery-Store Defendants

Trader Joe’s, Safeway, and Target argued that California’s two-year statute of limitations barred the claims. The plaintiff argued that North Dakota’s six-year limitations period should apply because he first suffered injury there. The court applied California law, finding that North Dakota had no relevant interest in applying its limitations period to the case and that California’s interests outweighed North Dakota’s interests.

The court held that California’s two-year limitations period applied to the negligence, negligent-infliction-of-emotional-distress, and warranty claims. It rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the discovery rule delayed the claims. Under that rule, the limitations period may begin when a plaintiff discovers, or has reason to discover, the factual basis for a claim. The court found that the plaintiff’s serious health issues began in 2018, the 2020 hair test showed elevated mercury, and the complaint did not allege facts supporting tolling beyond 2020. The court therefore held that the claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

The court identified additional grounds for dismissing some claims if they were not time-barred. It said the complaint did not plausibly allege emotional distress, punitive damages were unavailable on the asserted claims, the plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief based on future harm, and no asserted claim authorized attorney’s fees. These additional points did not alter the court’s stated limitations-based dismissal of the grocery-store claims.

Disposition

The court granted the motions to dismiss and dismissed the claims with prejudice. It dismissed the claims against the FDA for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, and dismissed the claims against the grocery-store defendants as barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The order resolved ECF Nos. 92, 94, and 95.