The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
PLANT BASED FOODS )
ASSOCIATION and TURTLE )
ISLAND FOODS SPC d/b/a THE )
TOFURKY COMPANY, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
-vs- ) Case No. CIV-20-938-F
)
KEVIN STITT, in his official capacity )
as Oklahoma Governor; and BLAYNE )
ARTHUR, in her official capacity as )
Oklahoma Commissioner of )
Agriculture, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Defendants have moved for an order seeking dismissal of Plant Based Foods
Association (PBFA) as a party-plaintiff for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(h)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P., and for failure to
establish a case or controversy under Article III, Section 2 of the United States
Constitution. Doc. no. 118.1 PBFA has responded, opposing relief. Doc. no. 122.
Defendants have replied. Doc. no. 124.
Plaintiffs have brought this action challenging the constitutionality of
Oklahoma’s Meat Consumer Protection Act (Oklahoma Act), 2 O.S. § 5-107, under
the dormant Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Supremacy Clause
of the United States Constitution. They allege that the Oklahoma Act institutes a
1 In the alternative, defendant Blayne Arthur has moved for an order compelling PBFA to
cooperate in the discovery process and provide responsive information on behalf of each of
PBFA’s members. See, doc. no. 119.
protectionist trade barrier that contravenes and is preempted by federal law and
imposes vague standards on plaintiff Turtle Island Foods d/b/a the Tofurky
Company (Tofurky) and other members of plaintiff PBFA who use words associated
with meat products to describe products that are marketed and packaged as 100%
plant-based or vegan. Plaintiffs request the court to declare the Oklahoma Act
unconstitutional and grant a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the
Oklahoma Act.
In their motion, defendants argue that PBFA, which is a nonprofit trade
association that represents leading manufacturers and sellers of 100% plant-based
foods, including plant-based meat producers, lacks standing to prosecute this action.
PBFA counters that that it has direct organizational standing as well as associational
standing to challenge the Oklahoma Act’s constitutionality.
Upon review, the court concludes that it need not address the issue of PBFA’s
standing. Defendants have not challenged Tofurky’s standing. And Tofurky has
raised the same claims and seeks the same relief, declaratory and injunctive relief,
as PBFA. As a general matter, in a case seeking injunctive relief, the district court
need not address a plaintiff’s standing if it concludes that one plaintiff has standing.
See, Pennsylvania v. DeJoy, 490 F.Supp.3d 833, 869 (E.D. Penn. 2020); Western
Watersheds Project v. Bureau of Land Management, 971 F.Supp.2d 957, 967-68
(E.D. Cal. 2013); see also, Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional
Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 52 n. 2 (2006); Board of Education of Independent School
District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822, 826 n. 1 (2002) (not
addressing standing of plaintiff because one plaintiff had standing). Assuming the
allegations in the Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to be
true, see, Pueblo of Jemez v. United States, 790 F.3d 1143, 1148 n. 4 (10th Cir. 2015),
the court is satisfied the allegations are sufficient to establish each of the standing
elements for Tofurky to bring suit. Consequently, the issue of PBFA’s standing
need not be resolved at this stage.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Plant-Based Foods
Association (doc. no. 118) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 15" day of November, 2022.
STEPHEN P. FRIOT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20-0938p030.doex
? To demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must show that it has suffered an “injury in fact” that is
“fairly traceable” to the defendant’s actions and that is “likely to be redressed” by the relief it
seeks. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016).