Lyons

Ponderosa Dairy v. Lyons

Good Law
259 F.3d 1148
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 9, 2001Nos. 99-16981, 99-16982California2,948 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sedwick, J.

Appellants (collectively “Ponderosa and Hillside”) are dairies located outside California that sell their raw milk to processors located in California. Ponderosa and Hillside brought suit against William J. Lyons 1 and A.J. Yates (collectively “California”), Secretary and Undersecretary of *1151 the California Department of Food and Agriculture, following the 1997 enactment of amendments to California’s milk pooling plan. 2 The 1997 amendments made out-of-state dairies, such as Ponderosa and Hillside, subject to the pooling plan for the first time. Three issues are presented on appeal: whether § 144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act (“Farm Bill”) insulates California’s 1997 pooling amendments from Commerce Clause challenges; whether appellants’ Equal Protection Clause causes of action were sufficiently pled; and whether the pooling plan amendments violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause-of the Constitution.

BACKGROUND

California has operated a unique milk price stabilization and marketing program since the 1930’s. The program classifies milk products into five categories: Class 1 includes fluid products such as the several varieties of milk; Class 2…

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.