[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. A. Several federal statutes regulate food products. The United