Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Food Safety

Seafood Processor Enjoined from Operation until HACCP Plan Approved

M. Sean Brister
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In United States v. Captain's Select Seafood, Inc., No. 0:08-CV-1658 (PJS/RLE), 2009 WL 398081 (D. Minn. Feb. 17, 2009), the court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and a permanent injunction against the defendant Captain's Select Seafood, Inc. (Captain's), stopping its operation until Captain's could produce a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Background

Captain's supplied seafood to top tier restaurants in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Id. at *1. As a food supplier, Captain's was required to comply with FDA regulations, including the adoption of HACCP plans. Id. Under FDA regulations, seafood prepared without an adequate HACCP plan is deemed adulterated and therefore unlawful. Id.

The business operated for about thirteen years until closing in 2008. Id. The FDA inspected Captain's operation four times from 2004 to July 2007, and each time the FDA deemed Captain's HACCP plan insufficient. Id. Subsequently, Captain's submitted numerous HACCP plans, but each was deemed insufficient by the FDA. Id.

The final HACCP plan submitted by Captain's on June 1, 2008, was rejected by the FDA, and the FDA filed suit five days later seeking to enjoin the operations of Captain's until an acceptable HACCP plan was adopted and Captain's facilities passed FDA inspection. Id. The government moved for summary judgment and a permanent injunction, and Captain's moved to enlarge the time to respond to the summary judgment motions.

Arguments

The FDA argued that Captain's history of operating without an adequate HACCP plan was sufficient to warrant a permanent injunction. Id. at *2. Captain's argued that its proposed HACCP plans, particularly the final plan submitted to FDA, complied with all FDA regulations. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The court ignored the defendant's argument, stating that it was not necessary to reach a decision on whether the latest HACCP plan complied with FDA regulations because the undisputed facts were that Captain's operated without an adequate HACCP plan from 2004 until 2008. Id. The court ruled that such operation without an adequate HACCP plan was a clear violation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and that the likelihood of future violations warranted an injunction. Id.

The case was decided on February 17, 2009.