This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Constitutional Law
Commerce Clause
Equal Protection, Discriminatory Fishing Permits

Ralph Dairy, Lynette Dairy, Joseph Spier, Phyllis Spier, F/V Brooke Michelle LLC, William Currie, Howard Moore v. Charlton Bonham, Director of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Published: Mar. 29, 2014 | Result Date: Mar. 7, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:13-cv-01518-EMC Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Thane Tienson

James Craner

Gwendolyn L. Fanger

James H. Walsh


Defendant

M. Elaine Meckenstock

Annadel A. Almendras
(Office of the Attorney General)

Gary Alexander


Facts

Ralph Dairy, Lynette Dairy, Joseph Spier, Phyllis Spier, F/V Brooke Michelle LLC, William Currie, and Howard Moore filed a complaint against Charlton Bonham, Director of the California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, seeking to invalidate California Fish & Game Code Section 8276.5 and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for various alleged federal constitutional violations. Section 8276.5 implemented regulation of the Dungeness crab trap Limit Program. Plaintiffs were non-California residents involved in the crabbing industry.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that Section 8276.5 violated the commerce clause, equal protection clause, right to free movement, privileges and immunities clause, procedural due process, bill of attainder, and conflict preemption with Magnuson-Stevens Act.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant sought to dismiss plaintiffs' claims.

Result

The court initially granted defendant's motion to dismiss on certain of plaintiffs' claims. Then, defendant moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claims for privileges and immunities clause and conflict preemption, which the court granted in part and denied in part. Defendant then filed a motion for reconsideration. Defendant specifically requested the court to reconsider its ruling denying summary judgment as to plaintiffs' privileges and immunities clause. On reconsideration, the court granted defendant's motion for reconsideration and motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' privileges and immunities clause claim. It concluded that the facially neutral statute at issue neither serves as a proxy for differential treatment of nonresidents nor discriminates in practical effect against nonresidents. As a result, the court entered judgment in defendant's favor.


#84745

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390