762 F.2d 1 (2nd Cir. 1985), 886, L & L Started Pullets, Inc. v. Gourdine

Docket Nº:886, Docket 84-7704.
Citation:762 F.2d 1
Party Name:L & L STARTED PULLETS, INC., Avian Bates Farms, Inc., Mountain Pride Farmers, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Intercounty Farmer Co-operative Association, a New York cooperative association, class plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf of a class similarly situated and The Grand Union Company, a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
Case Date:May 01, 1985
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1

762 F.2d 1 (2nd Cir. 1985)

L & L STARTED PULLETS, INC., Avian Bates Farms, Inc.,

Mountain Pride Farmers, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of

Intercounty Farmer Co-operative Association, a New York

cooperative association, class plaintiffs, for themselves

and on behalf of a class similarly situated and The Grand

Union Company, a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

Simon P. GOURDINE, as Commissioner of Department of Consumer

Affairs of City of New York, and the City of New

York, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 886, Docket 84-7704.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

May 1, 1985

Argued March 6, 1985.

Gerald Orseck, Liberty, N.Y. (Orseck, Orseck & Greenberg, Liberty, N.Y., on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Kristin M. Helmers, New York City (Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel of the City of New York, Stephen J. McGrath, New York City, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.

Before TIMBERS, NEWMAN and KEARSE, Circuit Judges.

KEARSE, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs L & L Started Pullets, Inc., Avian Bates Farms, Inc., Mountain Pride Farmers, Inc. (collectively the "producer plaintiffs"), and The Grand Union Company appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Abraham D. Sofaer, Judge, dismissing their complaint for, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting defendants Simon P. Gourdine and the City of New York (collectively the "City") from enforcing City and New York State laws and regulations governing minimum weight requirements for various classes of shell eggs sold in New York City on the ground that those regulations are preempted by federal laws and constitute an impermissible burden on commerce. The district court granted the City's motion

Page 2

for summary judgment on the ground that the federal laws were not intended to preempt local regulation and that the City's practice of permitting deviation from published minima to allow for weight loss during shipment negated any conflict with the federal regulatory scheme and any undue burden on commerce. On appeal, plaintiffs renew their constitutional attacks on the City's regulations and contend that the case should not have been decided on summary judgment. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

  1. The Published Regulatory Schemes

    The producer plaintiffs' eggs are produced at plants subject to a voluntary federal inspection program pursuant to the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 7 U.S.C. Sec. 1621, et seq. (1982 & Supp.1985). Regulations promulgated pursuant to this statute set forth minimum net weight requirements for each class of eggs but provide that "[c]ompliance with [these] regulations ... shall not excuse failure to comply with any other Federal, or any State, or municipal applicable laws or regulations." 7 C.F.R. Sec. 56.8 (1985). The Shell Egg Graders Handbook of the Poultry and Dairy Quality Division, Food Safety and Quality Service, United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), contains detailed information on the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP