Facts

Kevin Marilley, Salvatore Papetti and Savior Papetti filed a class action against Charlton Bonham, director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, challenging the state's commercial fishing licensing statutes as unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution's Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on behalf of commercial fishermen who fished in California's waters, but weren't California residents. Plaintiffs were nonresident commercial fishermen.

Both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The state's commercial fishing licensing statutes charged commercial fishermen who fished in California, but weren't residents of the state, two to almost four times more than the fees assessed on California residents. Plaintiffs contended that the difference in the fees was unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the state's differential licensing fees violated the U.S. Constitution's Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that the challenged activity didn't trigger constitutional protection. Defendant also asserted three state interests that justified the higher fees for nonresidents. The interests included: California's interest in recovering a reasonable share of its investments in fisheries; its interest in minimizing the subsidization of non-residents; and its interest in maintaining its own natural resources.

Result

The court concluded that the differential fees violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and plaintiffs were entitled to partial summary judgment on their Privileges and Immunities Clause claim. Judge Magistrate Donna M. Ryu declared the differential fees unconstitutional, and enjoined defendant from enforcing the differential fee. However, because the court didn't reach defendant's arguments in its motion for summary judgment concerning plaintiffs' equal protection claim, the court stayed the litigation of plaintiff's equal protection claim.

Other Information

Defendant is appealing the partial summary judgment in plaintiff's favor.