USCA11 Case: 22-11330     Document: 54-1      Date Filed: 12/06/2023   Page: 1 of 25




                                                               [PUBLISH]


                                     In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eleventh Circuit

                            ____________________

                                  No. 22-11330
                            ____________________

        A1A BURRITO WORKS, INC.,
        a Florida corporation,
        A1A BURRITO WORKS TACO SHOP 2, INC.,
        a Florida corporation,
        JUNIPER BEACH ENTERPRISES, INC.,
        a Florida corporation, on behalf of themselves and those similarly
        situated,
                                                     Plaintiffs-Appellants,
        versus
        SYSCO JACKSONVILLE, INC.,
        a Delaware corporation,
                                                      Defendant-Appellee.
USCA11 Case: 22-11330         Document: 54-1        Date Filed: 12/06/2023        Page: 2 of 25




        2                         Opinion of the Court                      22-11330

                                ____________________

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Florida
                      D.C. Docket No. 3:21-cv-00041-TJC-JBT
                             ____________________


        Before GRANT, TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges, and HUFFAKER, ∗ District
        Judge.
        HUFFAKER, District Judge:
                Plaintiffs A1A Burrito Works, Inc.; A1A Burrito Works Taco
        Shop 2, Inc.; and Juniper Beach Enterprises, Inc. (the Restaurants)
        purchase packaged poultry products from Defendant Sysco
        Jacksonville, Inc., for eventual resale to consumers. The
        Restaurants brought a putative class action alleging that Sysco
        violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
        (FDUTPA) and breached its contracts with the Restaurants when
        Sysco regularly delivered underweight boxes of poultry. The
        district court dismissed the Restaurants’ claims with prejudice on
        the grounds that the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA or the
        Act) preempted their state law claims. According to the district
        court, the Restaurants’ claims impermissibly sought to impose on
        Sysco labeling requirements that are “in addition to, or different
        than” the requirements prescribed by federal law. The question for

        ∗
         Honorable R. Austin Huffaker, Jr., United States District Judge for the Middle
        District of Alabama, sitting by designation.
USCA11 Case: 22-11330     Document: 54-1     Date Filed: 12/06/2023    Page: 3 of 25




        22-11330              Opinion of the Court                       3

        this Court is whether the Restaurants plausibly pleaded state law
        claims premised on Sysco’s allegedly misleading labels on its
        poultry packages that are not preempted by federal law.
               After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument,
        we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further
        proceedings. On this record, the Restaurants have not shown that
        the district court erred in dismissing their FDUTPA claim as
        preempted. But the district court did err in dismissing the
        Restaurants’ breach of contract claim to the extent the Restaurants
        allege that they did not receive the amount of poultry for which
        they paid in accordance with their contracts with Sysco. Such a
        claim is not preempted because it merely seeks to enforce the
        parties’ private agreements regarding the cost and weight of
        poultry packages and does not amount to a state imposing a
        labeling requirement inconsistent with federal regulations.
                                        I.