CEDAR POINT NURSERY v. HASSID III (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

CEDAR POINT NURSERY; Fowler Packing Company, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Victoria HASSID; Isadore Hall III; Santiago Avila-Gomez, Esquire; Julia L. Montgomery; Barry Broad; Ralph Lightstone; Cinthia N. Flores;* Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16321

Decided: August 04, 2021

Before: Edward Leavy, William A. Fletcher, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges.

Wencong Fa, Jeremy Talcott, Joshua P. Thompson, Damien M. Schiff, and Christopher M. Kieser, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, California; Ian B. Wieland and Howard A. Sagaser, Sagaser Watkins & Wieland PC; Fresno, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Douglass J. Woods and Thomas S. Patterson, Senior Assistant Attorneys General; Mark R. Beckington, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; R. Matthew Wise, Deputy Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California; for Defendants-Appellees. Frank Garrison and Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Cato Institute. Steven J. Lechner, Mountain States Legal Foundation, Lakewood, Colorado, for Amicus Curiae Mountain States Legal Foundation. Nancy N. McDonough and Carl G. Borden, California Farm Bureau Federation, Sacramento, California, for Amicus Curiae California Farm Bureau Federation. Mario Martínez, Martínez Aguilasocho & Lynch APLC, Bakersfield, California; Jacob C. Goldberg and Henry M. Willis, Schwartz Steinsapir Dohrmann & Sommers LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Amici Curiae United Farm Workers of America and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 770.

ORDER

The Supreme Court recently reversed the judgment in this case, and remanded it to this court for further proceedings. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 2063, ––– L.Ed.2d –––– (2021).

We previously affirmed the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim for failure to state a claim under either the Fifth or Fourth Amendments. Cedar Point Nursery v. Shiroma, 923 F.3d 524, 526–27 (9th Cir. 2019). Plaintiffs petitioned for certiorari on the Fifth Amendment claim. The Supreme Court held that the access regulation, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, § 20900(e), “appropriates a right to invade the growers’ property and therefore constitutes a per se physical taking,” 141 S.Ct. at 2072, and that Plaintiffs’ complaint thus “states a claim for an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,” id. at 2074. In light of the Supreme Court's decision, the judgment of the district court relating to the Fifth Amendment claim is reversed. For the reasons stated in Cedar Point Nursery v. Shiroma, 923 F.3d at 534–36, the judgment of the district court dismissing the Fourth Amendment claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is affirmed. This matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.

The copy of this order shall act as and for the mandate of this court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law