Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-06053/USCOURTS-caed-1_96-cv-06053-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DELANO FARMS COMPANY, a 

Washington corporation, THE SUSAN 

NEILL COMPANY, a California 

corporation, LUCAS BROS. 

PARTNERSHIP, a California 

Partnership, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

THE CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPE 

COMMISSION, 

 Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NOS. CV-F-96-6053 OWW DLB 

 CV F-96-6198 OWW DLB 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 

CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPE 

COMMISSION’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN 

PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR 

PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Upon consideration of Defendant California Table Grapes Commission’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Doc. 289) and supporting papers; Plaintiffs Delano Farms Co., The Susan Neill 

Co., and Lucas Brothers Partnership’s opposition memorandum and supporting papers; and the 

stipulations and arguments of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Commission’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Memorandum 

Decision dated March 28, 2008 and filed March 31, 2008 (Doc. 361).1 

Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and/or Summary 

Adjudication of Issues (Docs. 311 & 312) and supporting papers; the Commission’s opposition 

memorandum; and the stipulations and arguments of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication of Issues is 

 

1 Although, as noted below, the Court did not accept one alternative argument presented by the 

Commission, the Court’s decision mandates entry of judgment in full with respect to Plaintiffs’ First 

Amendment claims. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:96-cv-06053-OWW -DLB Document 364 Filed 04/16/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Memorandum 

Decision dated March 28, 2008 and filed March 31, 2008 (Doc. 361). 

Specifically, the Court held as follows: 

1. The Commission’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Table Grape 

Commission is a governmental entity that engages in government speech within the 

meaning of Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass’n., 544 U.S. 550 (2005), is 

GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary adjudication on this issue is 

DENIED. 

2. Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary adjudication that the Table Grape Commission 

is governed by United Foods, Inc. v. United States, 533 U.S. 405 (2001), is DENIED. 

3. Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary adjudication on the ground that the Central 

Hudson test, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of 

New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), has no application to the resolution of Plaintiffs’ 

First Amendment challenge to the Ketchum Act is GRANTED, and the 

Commission’s motion for summary judgment on that ground is DENIED. 

4. The Commission’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that its activities are 

germane to valid legislative objectives within the meaning of Abood v. Detroit Board 

of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977), is GRANTED. 

5. The Commission’s motion for partial summary judgment on the grounds that The 

Susan Neill Company lacks standing to obtain relief and the Lucas Brothers 

Partnership lacks standing to obtain prospective as opposed to past relief is 

GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication on this issue is 

DENIED. 

Because this order granting the Commission’s Motion for Summary Judgment disposes of 

Plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims and Plaintiffs’ other claims already have been finally dismissed 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:96-cv-06053-OWW -DLB Document 364 Filed 04/16/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 

with prejudice, the Clerk of this court will enter judgment, dismissing this action in its entirety, with 

prejudice, and awarding the Commission its costs of suit as taxed by the clerk. 

IT IS SO ORDERED 

Dated: _April 15, 2008 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER_____________ 

 _____________________________ 

 Oliver W. Wanger 

 United States District Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:96-cv-06053-OWW -DLB Document 364 Filed 04/16/08 Page 3 of 3