Central Coast Meats, Inc., a California Corporation v. United States Department of Agriculture

541 F.2d 1325 CENTRAL COAST MEATS, INC., a California Corporation, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent. No. 74-1302. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Aug. 10, 1976. Todd C. Gaskill (argued), of Richardson & Gaskill, Fresno, Cal., for petitioners. Kenneth H. Vail (argued), of U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Office of Gen. Counsel, Washington, D. C., for respondent. David H. Rosenberg (argued), of Rosenberg, Kasmir & Willingham, Dallas, Tex., for intervenor. Before MERRILL, CHOY and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges. MERRILL, Circuit Judge: 1 The Secretary of Agriculture, having determined that joint ownership by petitioners, Harold Habib, Sr., and Harry S. Habib of a cattle-buying business and a meat-packing business constitutes an unfair practice under §§ 202(a) and 312(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1 has ordered petitioners to divest themselves of one or the other of the two enterprises. Petitioners have taken this appeal from that order. 2 The Habibs are the owners and managers of Central Coast Meats, Inc. (CCM), a California corporation, whose business operations bring it within the definition of a packer. 7…

The Secretary of Agriculture, having determined that joint ownership by petitioners, Harold Habib, Sr., and Harry S. Habib of a cattle-buying business and a meatpacking business constitutes an unfair practice under §§ 202(a) and 312(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1 has ordered petitioners to divest themselves of one or the other of the two enterprises. Petitioners have taken this appeal from that order.

The Habibs are the owners and managers of Central Coast Meats, Inc. (CCM), a California corporation, whose business operations bring it within the definition of a packer. 7 U.S.C. § 191 . They also do business as livestock buyers and sellers under the name of Habib Cattle Company (HCC), and their operations there bring them within the definition of dealer. 7 U.S.C. § 201 (d).

A Department of Agriculture' regulation, 9 C.F.R. § 201.68 , bars ownership of a packer by a dealer, or vice versa. Section 201.70 of the Regulations condemns restriction or limitation of competition between packers and dealers.

The Department of Agriculture filed a complaint charging the Habibs with engaging in an unfair practice through their joint ownership of the two enterprises in question. A…

(dissenting):

I would affirm the Secretary’s order.

In order to facilitate market regulation, Congress has invested certain executive agencies with broad powers. For example, Congress intended that the Federal Trade Commission be accorded wide latitude in its assessment of unfair trade practices. FTC v. Brown Shoe Co., 384 U.S. 316 , 86 S.Ct. 1501 , 16 L.Ed.2d 587 (1966). The FTC can “define and proscribe an unfair competitive practice, even though the practice does not infringe either the letter or the spirit of the antitrust laws.” FTC v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co., 405 U.S. 233, 239 , 92 S.Ct. 898, 903 , 31 L.Ed.2d 170 (1972).

Significantly, the prohibitions of sections 202(a) and 312(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 192 (a) & 213(a), were intended to be as rigorous, if not more rigorous, that those imposed under § 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, § 2 of the Clayton Act, and the various sections of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Wilson & Co. v. Benson, 286 F.2d 891 (7th Cir. 1961). See also, 61 Cong.Rec. 1805. The Packers and Stockyards Act is remedial legislation. Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495, 521 , 42 S.Ct. 397 , 66 L.Ed. 735 (1922). It should be…