Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1724428/Agriculture-Law-foster
Timestamp: 2018-07-23 17:55:45
Document Index: 576618161

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2701', '§ 1250', '§ 2713', '§ 2701', 'art 12', '§ 2713', 'art 1250', '§ 1209', '§ 1200', '§ 1200', '§ 900', '§ 900', '§ 2702', '§ 2713', '§ 2717', '§ 2702', 'ART 1250', '§ 1250', '§ 1250', '§ 1250', '§ 1250', '§ 1250', '§ 2713', '§ 271', '§ 608', '§ 608', '§ 2713', '§ 2713', '§ 608', '§ 608', '§ 900', '§ 900', '§ 608', '§ 608', '§ 608', '§ 900', '§ 900', '§ 608', '§ 900', '§ 2713', '§ 2713', '§ 1200', '§ 900', '§ 608', '§ 2717', '§ 2717', '§ 2713']

Agriculture Law: foster | Administrative Law Judge | Justice
Agriculture Law: foster
In re: Foster En terprises, a Ca lifornia general partnership, and Eggs West, a California corporation, Petitioners
2002 AM A Docke t No. F&V 1250-1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY Foster En terprises, a Ca lifornia gen eral partnersh ip, and Eg gs West, a C alifornia corporation [hereinafter Petitioners], instituted this proceeding by filing a Petition1 on September 27, 2002. Petitioners instituted the proceeding under the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2718) [hereinafter the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act]; the Egg Research and Promotion Order (7 C.F.R. §§ 1250.301-.363) [hereinafter the Egg Order]; and the Rules of Practice
Petitioners entitle their Petition “Petition Pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2713 Contending That the Egg Research and Consumer Information Legislation, 7 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., and the E gg Rese arch and P romotion O rder of 7 C .F.R. Part 12 50, and the Assessm ents Imposed for the Same Violate Petitioners’ Rights Guaranteed Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Seeking a Modification of the Order and an Exemption From the Order From Having to Pay Assessments or Supply Records to the America n Egg B oard or U SDA Which A re Used f or the Colle ction of A ssessmen ts (7 U.S.C. § 2713; 7 C.F.R. Part 1250; 7 C.F.R. § 1209.402 et seq.)” [hereinafter Petition].
2 Governing Proceedings on Petitions To Modify or To Be Exempted From Research, Promotion and Education Programs (7 C.F.R. §§ 1200.50-.52) [hereinafter the Rules of Practice]. 2 Petitioners contend the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act, the Egg Order, the assessments imposed under the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act and the Egg Order, and the collection of records violate Petitioners’ rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Petitioners seek an exemption from, or modification of, the Eg g Rese arch an d Con sumer Inform ation A ct and th e Egg Order . (Pet. ¶ 1 4.) On November 25, 2002, the Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture [hereinafter Respondent], filed “Motion to Dismiss Petition Contending that the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act and Egg Research and Promotion Order are Unconstitutional” [hereinafter Motion to Dismiss] and “Memorandum of Points and Authorities.” On December 18, 2002, Petitioners filed “Petitioners’ Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition; Petitioners’ Cross-Motion for Summa ry Judgment” [hereinaf ter Response to M otion to Dismiss].
Section 1200.52(d) of the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R. § 1200.52(d)) provides 7 C.F.R. §§ 900.52(c)(2)-.71 also govern proceedings on petitions to modify or to be exempted from research, promotion, and education program s. Therefore, where appropriate, references to the “Rules of Practice” in this Decision and Order include 7 C.F.R. §§ 900.52(c)(2)-.71.
3 On February 4, 2003, Chief Administrative Law Judge James W. Hunt [hereinafter the Chief ALJ] dismissed the Petition on the ground that Petitioners do not have standing to file the Petition (Order Dism issing Petition at 2). On February 26, 2003, Petitioners appealed to the Judicial Officer. On March 24, 2003, Respon dent filed “Respon dent’s Response to Petitioners’ Appeal of the ALJ’s ‘Order Dismissing Petition’” and “Memorandum of Points and Authorities.” On March 28, 2003, the Hearing Clerk transmitted the record to the Judicial Officer for consideration and decision. Based upon a careful consideration of the record, I adopt, with minor modif ications , the Ch ief AL J’s Ord er Dism issing P etition as the fina l Decis ion and Order . Additional conclusions by the Judicial Officer follow the Chief ALJ’s discussion as restated. APPLICABLE CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY, AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS U.S. Co nst. Amend ment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the pr ess, or the righ t of the peo ple peacea bly to assemb le, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. U.S. Const. amen d. I.
4 7 U.S.C .: TITLE 7—AGRICULTURE .... CHAPTER 60—EGG RESEARCH AND CONSUMER INFORMATION .... § 2702. Definitions As used in this chap ter— .... (b) The term “person” means any individual, group of individuals, partners hip, c orpo ratio n, association , coo pera tive, or an y othe r entity. .... (t) The term “handler” means any person, specified in the order or the rules and regulations issued thereunder, who receives or otherwise acquires eggs from an egg producer, and processes, prepares for marketing, or markets such eggs, including eggs of his own production. § 2713. Administrative review of orders; petition; hearing; judicial review (a) Any perso n subject to a ny order may file a written pe tition with the Secretary, stating that any such order or any provisions of such order or any obligation s imposed in connec tion therew ith is not in acc ordance w ith law and praying for a modification thereof or to be exempted therefrom. He shall thereup on be give n an opp ortunity for a he aring upo n such pe tition, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary. After such hearing, the Secretary shall m ake a ruling upon the p rayer of such petition wh ich shall be final, if in accordance with law. § 2717. Investigations by Secretary; oaths and affirmations; subpoenas; judicial enforcement; contempt proceedings; service of process The Secretary may mak e such investigations as he d eems necessary for the eff ective carrying o ut of his resp onsibilities und er this chapte r or to
5 determine whether an egg producer, processor, or other seller of comme rcial eggs or a ny other perso n has eng aged or is ab out to enga ge in any acts or practices which constitute or will constitute a violation of any provisions of this chapter, or of any order, or rule or regulation issued under this chapter. F or the purp ose of suc h investigatio n, the Secre tary is empowered to administer oaths and affirmations, subpena witnesses, com pel th eir at tend ance , take evid ence , and requ ire th e pro duction of an y books, papers, and documents which are relevant to the inquiry. Such attendance of witnesses and the production of any such records may be required from any place in the United States. In case of contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpena to, any person, including an egg producer, the Secretary may invoke the aid of any court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such investigation or proceeding is carried on, or where such person resides or carries on business, in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, and docume nts; and suc h court ma y issue an orde r requiring su ch person to appear be fore the Se cretary, there to pro duce reco rds, if so orde red, or to give testimony touching the matter under investigation. Any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. All process in any such case may be served in the judicial district whereof such person is an inhabitant or wherever he may be found. 7 U.S.C. §§ 2702(b), (t), 2713(a), 2717.
6 7 C.F.R .: TITLE 7—AGRICULTURE .... SUBTITLE B—REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE .... CHAPTER XI—AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (MARKETING AGREEM ENTS AND O RDERS; MISC ELLA NEOU S COM MOD ITIES), DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE .... PART 1250—EGG RESEARCH AND PROMOTION Subpart—Egg Research and Promotion Order D EFINITIONS .... § 1250.304 Egg Board or Board. Egg Board or Board or other designatory term adopted by such Board, with the approval of the Secretary, means the administrative body established pursuant to § 1250.326. .... § 1250.307 Person. Person means any individual, group of individuals, partnership, corp oration, a ssoc iatio n, co operativ e, or a ny oth er en tity. ....
7 § 1250.309 Handler. Handler means any person who receives or otherwise acquires eggs from an egg producer, and processes, prepares for marketing, or markets, such eggs, including eggs of his own production. 7 C.F.R. §§ 1250.304, .307, .309. CHIE F ADM INISTR ATIVE LAW JUDG E’S ORDER DISMISSING PETITION (AS RESTATED) Petitioners allege: 4. From approximately 1988 to December 1995, Petitioner Eggs West was a handler of eggs and thus arguably subject to the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act (hereinafter the “Act”) and arguably subject to the Egg Research and Promotion Order (hereinafter the “Order”). Since December of 1995 Eg gs West has not been a handler of eggs. Eggs West submits this petition, on behalf of its self, because apparently USDA believes that Eggs West should be subject to the Order and the Act for activities that occurred prior to December 1995 or thereafter and thus Eggs West submits this petition in order to determine the constitutionality of the Act and the O rder. 5. Petitioner Foster Enterprises from December of 1995 until the first part of 2002 was a handler of eggs and arguably subject to the Act and the Ord er. . . . 6. . . . It is believed that USDA will assert that Foster Enterprises was a ha ndler from 1995 un til at least early 2002 and subje ct to the Act and the Order, and subject to assessments. Foster Enterprises contests the constitutionality of the Act and the Order or the levying of assessments, interest or penalties applicable to Foster Enterprises. Pet. ¶¶ 4-6. Respo ndent f iled a M otion to Dismi ss on th e groun d, inter alia, that Petitioners lack standing to file the Petition because they do not state they are persons subject to the Egg Order.
8 Section 14(a) of the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act provides that any person subject to any order may file a petition with the Secretary of Agriculture, as follows: § 2713. Administrative review of orders; petition; hearing; judicial review (a) Any perso n subject to a ny order may file a written pe tition with the Secretary, stating that any such order or any provisions of such order or any obligation s imposed in connec tion therew ith is not in acc ordance w ith law and praying for a modification thereof or to be exempted therefrom. 7 U.S.C. § 271 3(a). Petitioners argue Respondent considered them to be subject to the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act and Egg Order by sending them letters and a subpoena duces tecum (Response to Motion to Dismiss at 3-4). One letter from the Agricultural Marketing Service cautions Petitioners not to destroy, tamper with, or remove any records relating to an audit being conducted by the Agricultural Marketing Service.3 The second letter from the Agricultural Marketing Service states that it had requested a review of the “egg han dling record s of Egg s West, Inc ., and/or Fos ter Enterprise s betwee n Augu st, 1993 and April, 2001, or during this period of time when Eggs West, Inc. or Foster
See undated letter from G. Neil Blevins, Chief Compliance Officer, Agricultural Marketing Service, Marketing and Regulatory Programs, United States Department of Agricultur e, to Jeff Fo ster, Chief F inancial O fficer, Foste r Enterprises , attached to Petitioners’ Response to Motion to Dismiss.
9 Enterp rises w as enga ged in h andling eggs.” 4 A third letter re fers to recor ds from 1 995 to 2000.5 The subpoena duces tecum orders Petitioners to produce for inspection and copying documents pertaining to the period January 1, 1995, to December 31, 1999.6 Petitioners cite Midway Farm s v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, 188 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 1999), in support of their Petition. In Midway Farms, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, even though a person does not admit it is a handler, that person has standing to file a petition requesting the modification of, or to be exempted from, a marketing order, when a person with authority to apply the marketing order seeks to apply the mark eting order to the petitioner. How ever, Midway Farms is inapposite. Respondent in this proceeding does not allege Petitioners are handlers or persons subject to the Egg Order. The letters and subpoena duces tecum filed by Petitioners establish that the Agricultural Marketing Servic e is revie wing r ecords for a pe riod of time prio r to Petitio ners’ fili ng the P etition.
See letter dated July 10, 2002, from Maria Martinez-Esguerra, Compliance Officer, Agricultural Marketing Service, Marketing and Regulatory Programs, United States De partment o f Agricu lture, to Doro thy Chu, Fo ster Enterpris es and Eg gs West, Inc., attached to Petitioners’ Response to Motion to Dismiss. See letter dated September 24, 2002, from Kenneth H. Vail, Assistant General Counsel, Marketing Division, Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Agric ulture, to Jeff Foster, Ch ief Financ ial Officer, F oster Enterp rises, attached to Petitioners’ Response to Motion to Dismiss. See subpoena duces tecum dated September 25, 2002 , issued by A. J. Yates, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, to Petitioners and attachment A to the subpoena duces tecum, attached to Petitioners’ Response to Motion to Dismiss.
10 Furthe r, Petition ers do n ot assert that they a re perso ns subj ect to the Egg O rder. Therefore, Petitioners lack standing to file the Petition. ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS BY THE JUDICIAL OFFICER Petitioners raise one issue in “Petitioners’ Appeal of the ALJ’s ‘Order Dismissing Petition’” [hereinafter Appeal Petition]. Petitioners contend the Chief ALJ erred “when he claimed that since Pe titioners do no t allege or adm it that they are han dlers subjec t to the ord er, they ha ve no s tanding to bring a petition pursua nt to Title 7 U.S.C . § 608c(15)(A)” (A ppeal Pet. at 1). As an initial m atter, the Chie f ALJ d id not conc lude Petition ers lack stand ing to file a petition pursuant to section 8c(15)(A) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. § 608c(15)(A)), as Petitioners contend. Instead, Petitioners filed the Petition pursuant to section 14 of the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act (7 U.S.C. § 2713) (Pet. at 1), and the Chief ALJ concluded Petitioners do not have standing to file a petition pursuant to section 14 of the Egg Research and Consumer In formation Act (7 U .S.C. § 2713) (Initial Decision an d Order). Petitioners rely on Midway Farms v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 188 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 1999), as support for their contention that the Chief ALJ’s conclusion that Petitioners lack standing, is error. In Midway Farms, the United States Co urt of Ap peals for the N inth Circuit co ncluded th at a process or of off- grade raisins was a ha ndler with
11 standing to file a petition under 7 U.S.C. § 608c(15)(A)7 notwithstanding the pro cessor’s claim that it was not a handler, as follows: The ope rative statute allo ws “[a]n y handler sub ject to an ord er” to file an a dminis trative p etition w ith the S ecretary. 7 U.S.C . § 608c (15)(A ). The term “handler” is defined by regulation for purposes of section 608c(15 )(A) as “an y person wh o, by the terms o f a marke ting order, is subject thereto, or to whom a marketing order is sought to be made applicable.” 7 C.F.R. § 900.51(i). Neither party contends, for purposes of this action, that Midway is a “person who, by the terms of a marketing order, is subject thereto.” Thus, the sole question is whether Midway is a “person . . . to whom a marketing order is sought to be made applicable.” 7 C.F.R. § 900.51 (i). ....
Section 8c(15)(A) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, provides that only a handler may file a petition with the Secretary of Agriculture for modification of, or to be exempted from, a marketing order, as follows: § 608c. Ord ers regulating ha ndling of com modity .... (15) Petition by handler for modification of order or exemption; court review of ruling of Secretary
(A) An y handler sub ject to an ord er may file a w ritten petition w ith the Secretary of Agriculture, stating that any such order or any provision of any such ord er or any obliga tion impos ed in conn ection therew ith is not in accordance with law and praying for a modification thereof or to be exempted therefro m. He shall thereupo n be given an op portunity for a hearing upon such petition, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture, with the approval of the President. After such hearing, the Secretary shall make a ruling upon the prayer of such petition which shall be final, if in accordance with law. 7 U.S.C. § 608 c(15)(A).
12 . . . Because it cannot be controverted that the [Raisin Administrative] Committee did in fact seek to apply the Raisin Marketing Order to Midway, we conclude that Midway is a person to whom a Marketing Order has been sought to be made applicable and is thus a “handler,” if only for purp oses of sec tion 608c(1 5). Accor dingly, we ho ld that Midway has standing to file an administrative petition with the Secretary under section 608 c(15)(A). Midway Farms v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 188 F.3d at 1139-4 0 (footnotes omitted). I agree w ith the Chief ALJ’s co nclusion tha t Midway Farms is inapposite. The United States Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that Midway Farms was a handler with standing to file a petition under 7 U.S.C. § 608c(15)(A) turns on the definition of the word handler in section 900.51(i) of the Rules of Practice Governing Procee dings o n Petitio ns to M odify or to be Ex empte d from Mark eting O rders (7 C.F.R . § 900.51(i)), which defines handler to include any perso n to who m a ma rketing ord er is sought to b e made applicable . The Un ited States C ourt of A ppeals for the Ninth C ircuit found the Raisin Administrative Committee sought to apply the marketing order entitled “Raisins Produced from Grapes Grown in California” (7 C.F.R. pt. 989) [hereinafter the Raisin Order] to Midway Farms. 8 The Ninth Circuit concluded that, as Midway Farms met the definition of the word handler in 7 C.F.R. § 900.51(i), it had standing to file a petition in accordance w ith 7 U.S.C. § 608c (15)(A). 9 Section 900.51(i) of the Rules of
The Nin th Circuit fo und the R aisin Adm inistrative Co mmittee ha d the pow er to admin ister and apply the Raisin Order . Midway Farms v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 188 F.3d at 1140.
Midway Farms v. United States Dep’t of Agric., 188 F.3d at 1140.
13 Practice Governing Proceedings on Petitions to Modify or to be Exempted from Marketing Orders (7 C.F.R. § 900.51(i)) is not applicable to the instant proceeding. Further, I can find nothin g in the Eg g Resear ch and C onsume r Informa tion Act, the Egg Order, or the Rules of Practice, all of which are applicable to the instant proceeding, which confers standing to file a petition under section 14(a) of the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act (7 U.S.C. § 2713(a)) on a person to whom an order is sou ght to be m ade app licable. Instead, section 14(a) of the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act (7 U.S.C. § 2713(a)) and section 1200.52(a) of the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R. § 1200.52(a)) confers standing only on persons subject to an order. Further still, even if the definition of the word handler in 7 C.F.R . § 900.51(i) were applicable to this proceeding, I would not reverse the Chief ALJ. In Midway Farms, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found Midway Farms was a handler w ith standing to file a petition u nder 7 U .S.C. § 608 c(15)(A) b ecause the Raisin Adm inistrativ e Com mittee so ught to make the Ra isin Ord er applic able to M idway F arms. I find nothing on the record before me to establish that the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Egg Board, or any other person with authority to apply the Egg Order seeks to make Petitioners subject to the Egg Order. Specifically, I agree with the Chief ALJ that the three letters and the subpoena duces tecum attache d to Petitioners’ Response to Motion to D ismiss, which Petitioners contend establish that the A gricultural Marketing Se rvice seeks to make P etitioners
14 subject to the Egg Order, pertain to records of transactions that occurred prior to the time Petitioners filed the Petition. The letters and the subpoena duces tecum are related to an exercise of the Secretary of Agriculture’s investigatory authority under section 18 of the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act (7 U.S.C. § 2717), which provides the Secretary of Agriculture with authority to require the production of records from any person, not just from perso ns subject to the Egg O rder. The Secretary of A griculture’s investigation of Petitioners’ records pursuant to her authority under section 18 of the Egg Research and C onsumer Inform ation Act (7 U.S.C . § 2717) does no t make Petitioners persons subject to the Egg Order or confer standing on Petitioners to file a petition under section 14(a) of the Eg g Research and Consumer In formation Act (7 U .S.C. § 2713(a)). For the foregoing reasons, the following Order should be issued. ORDER The relief requested by Petitioners is denied. The Petition is dismissed without prejudice. Done at Washington, DC April 8, 2003
Documents Similar To Agriculture Law: foster
ICCM App (1)
ramani24
Complainw