Kawamura

Hillside Dairy, Inc. v. Kawamura

Good Law
317 F. Supp. 2d 1194·2004 WL 1068888·2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8281
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 7, 2004CV-S-97-1179 GEB JFM, CV-S-97-1195-GEB JFMCalifornia2,160 words

Opinion

Opinion

Burrell, J.

ORDER

Plaintiffs in both actions move for summary judgment on their facial challenge to California Food & Agricultural Code §§ 62077 and 62078, and certain 1997 amendments to the California Department of Food and Agriculture Pooling Plan for Market Milk (“Pooling Plan”), arguing these statutes and the amendments are unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Defendants oppose the motion, except for the portion that seeks to enjoin Defendants from enforcing §§ 62077 and 62078 on interstate raw milk sales.

CHALLENGE TO 62077 AND 62078

Defendants state the Department of Food and Agriculture has not applied §§ 62077 and 62078 to out-of-state raw milk producers, “does not intend to do so in the future, and ... does not object to a permanent injunction prohibiting the Department from enforcing these provisions on out-of-state dairy farmers.... ” (Defs.’ Supp. Brief in Opp’n to Pis.’ Joint Mot. for Summ. J., filed April 5, 2004, at 2.) In light of Defendants’ position, it must be determined whether Plaintiffs need an injunction preventing Defendants from doing what they say they have not done and will not do; specifically, Defendants state they have not applied and will not apply §§…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.