7-ELEVEN ALLOWED TO ENDANGER THE PUBLIC

---

Federal Court Dismisses Brown v. 7-Eleven, Citing Procedural Boundaries Despite Public-Safety Allegations

Case Overview

Case: Brown v. 7-Eleven Inc., No. 1:24-cv-03343-RMR-SBP

Court: U.S. District Court, District of Colorado

Judge: Hon. Regina M. Rodríguez

Filed: December 2 2024

Decision Issued: September 12 2025

HVAC and food-sanitation contractor Derrick Brown brought a federal civil-rights and public-health complaint against 7-Eleven Inc., alleging that the company’s food-service equipment and maintenance practices exposed the public to “unsanitary conditions and health hazards.”  Brown’s filings also accused corporate contractors and regulators of ignoring contamination risks in ice and beverage machines.

---

Court’s Decision

Judge Rodríguez issued a three-page order adopting Magistrate Judge Susan Prose’s recommendation and granting 7-Eleven’s motion to dismiss.

1. Federal Claims Dismissed With Prejudice

Causes of action under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) were dismissed permanently because those statutes do not create a private right of action for individuals to enforce.

The judge emphasized that, however serious Brown’s concerns, he “remains bound by the rules of procedure set forth by statute and the rules of civil procedure in all matters before the Court.”

2. State-Law Claims Dismissed Without Prejudice

Negligence and related state claims were removed from the federal docket but may be re-filed—either through a properly amended complaint by September 22 2025 or in Colorado state court.

3. Pending Motions Stricken

Six ancillary motions (ECF Nos. 65, 68, 69, 71, 75, 76) were struck; two motions to amend were denied without prejudice.

---

Judicial Reasoning

The ruling notes that the court reviewed the record de novo, including Brown’s public-warning exhibits and extensive filings, but concluded that further briefing “would not be helpful and would not further the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this action.”

In adopting the magistrate’s reasoning, Judge Rodríguez implicitly agreed that:

The FDCA and FTC Act provide exclusive enforcement authority to federal agencies (FDA and FTC).

Brown’s pleadings, while public-minded, did not establish an independent federal cause of action.

Any remaining claims must proceed under state negligence or consumer-protection theories, not federal regulatory statutes.

---

Implications

1. Public-Safety vs. Procedural Limits

The order illustrates how strict procedural rules can prevent contamination or public-health allegations from reaching discovery if statutes lack private-enforcement provisions.

2. Next Legal Steps

Amendment Window: Brown may file a motion to amend with state-law counts by Sept 22 2025.

Appeal Window: A Notice of Appeal to the Tenth Circuit must be filed by Oct 12 2025 if challenging the federal dismissal.

State-Court Option: Colorado’s negligence and public-nuisance laws could still allow the evidence to be tested on the merits.

3. Broader Context

The case highlights the gap between public expectations of accountability for food-service sanitation and the narrow legal pathways available under federal law. Courts may acknowledge potential health concerns yet decline jurisdiction when Congress has reserved enforcement to administrative agencies.

---

Conclusion

Judge Regina Rodríguez’s September 12 order closes the federal phase of Brown v. 7-Eleven but leaves open limited avenues for renewed action.  The decision underscores a recurring tension in U.S. jurisprudence: public-safety allegations can be substantively serious yet procedurally non-justiciable when corporate or regulatory frameworks shield enforcement behind federal-agency discretion.