United States Ninth Circuit

In a dispute over whether a statutory scheme compelling California pistachio growers to fund generic advertising through the California Pistachio Commission violates the First Amendment, grant of a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Commission is reversed and the injunction vacated where the district court erred in granting the motion as: 1) it was not apparent on the record that plaintiffs could establish a First Amendment violation, for purposes of their likelihood of success on the merits; and 2) the balance of hardships did not tip in plaintiffs' favor.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/08/2007
• Published 06/08/2007

Judges

• McKEOWN, Circuit Judge., Before:  CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, M. MARGARET McKEOWN, and KIM McLANE WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Seth P. Waxman, Randolph D. Moss, Neil J. King, and Todd Zubler, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLO, Washington, DC, and Jan L. Kahn, George Soares, Rissa A. Stuart, Kahn, Soares & Conway, LLP, Hanford, CA, for Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Rex S. Heinke, Michael C. Small, and Edward P. Lazarus, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Los Angeles, CA, and Brian C. Leighton, Law Offices of Brian C. Leighton, Clovis, CA, for appellees Paramount Land Company and affiliated entities., Andrew S. Clare and Scott Lidman, Loeb and Loeb, L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, for appellees Madera Pistachio Ranch # 2 and affiliated entities.