Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of Anchorage School Dist., Anchorage, Alaska, 88-4018
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before BROWNING, WALLACE and BRUNETTI; WALLACE |
| Citation | 868 F.2d 1085 |
| Parties | 52 Ed. Law Rep. 60 BIG COUNTRY FOODS, INC., an Alaska corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA; Department of Agriculture; Richard E. Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture; William Demmert, Commissioner of Education for the State of Alaska, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 88-4018,88-4018 |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1989 |
Page 1085
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA; Department of Agriculture; Richard E.
Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture; William Demmert,
Commissioner of Education for the State of Alaska,
Defendants-Appellees.
Ninth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 28, 1989.
Page 1086
Sema E. Lederman, Hansen & Lederman, Anchorage, Alaska, for plaintiff-appellant.
Neil J. Evans, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Susan R. Sharrock, Thomas E. Wagner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hellen, Partnow & Condon, Anchorage, Alaska, for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.
Before BROWNING, WALLACE and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.
WALLACE, Circuit Judge:
Big Country Foods, Inc. (Big Country) appeals the district court's denial of its motion for a preliminary injunction. Big Country, after unsuccessfully bidding for a contract to supply milk to the Anchorage School District for the 1988-89 school year, sought to enjoin the school district from entering into a contract with any supplier other than itself. Big Country also sought to enjoin both the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture and Alaska's Commissioner of Education from authorizing the disbursement of federal funds to the Anchorage School District until its application for permanent injunction is heard. Big Country argued that Alaska statutory procedures used to award the contract violate the federal Constitution's commerce clause and federal statutes governing the school district's procurement of milk. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(1), and we affirm.
Big Country is a distributor of milk harvested in the State of Washington. It has been the successful bidder for the contract to supply milk to the Anchorage School District in five of the last eight years. The Anchorage School District receives, via the State of Alaska, federal funds which subsidize the purchase of milk for Anchorage school children. Federal funds are granted to the State of Alaska as a voluntary participant in the Federal School Breakfast Program, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1771, et seq., and the National School Lunch Program, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1751, et seq. Participants in these federal programs are required to procure milk "in a manner that provides maximum open and free competition." Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, 7 C.F.R. Sec. 3015.182 (1988).
Page 1087
Sometime between May 11 and 26, 1988, Big Country submitted a bid of $360,000 for the contract to supply milk to the Anchorage School District for the 1988-89 school year. Two other suppliers, Northern Dairies and Matanuska Maid Dairy, submitted bids of $384,625 and $385,000, respectively. Pursuant to an Alaskan preference statute, Alaska Stat. Sec. 36.15.050(a) (1988), which requires schools receiving state funds to purchase dairy products harvested in the State of Alaska if the price is no more than seven percent higher than products of like quality harvested outside the state, the contract was awarded to Matanuska Maid Dairy. Big Country filed this motion for a preliminary injunction, claiming that the Alaskan preference statute violates the federal Constitution's dormant commerce clause and the requirement under federal regulations of free and open competition for the procurement of milk.
The merits of Big Country's claims raise a plethora of fascinating and complex issues, such as standing, mootness, ripeness, federalism, statutory interpretation, and the scope of the commerce clause. We need not, indeed cannot, resolve any of these issues due to the posture of this case. Our review of an order denying a preliminary injunction is very limited. Caribbean Marine Services Co. v. Baldrige, 844 F.2d 668, 673 (9th Cir.1988) (Caribbean Marine ); Oakland Tribune, Inc. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Tenakee Springs v. Clough, J86-024 Civil.
...a significant threat of irreparable injury, irrespective of the magnitude of the injury. Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of Anchorage School District, 868 F.2d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir.1989) (citations omitted). Where the plaintiff complains that the defendant has violated a federal stat......
-
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. GROUP INS. ADMIN.
...loss in revenue faced by GIA would translate into an equally serious loss in profits. See Big Country Foods v. Board of Educ. of Anchorage Sch. Dist., 868 F.2d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989) (loss of income, without any demonstrationof lost profits, insufficient to show irreparable Second, assu......
-
Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. General Elec. Co.
...demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury, irrespective of the magnitude of the injury. See Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board of Educ., 868 F.2d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir.1989). Plaintiffs point to the possibility that consumers and/or property managers may not be able, due to financi......
-
Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky
...quotation marks omitted), in light of the undeveloped record, we decline to do so. Cf. Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Anchorage Sch. Dist., 868 F.2d 1085, 1087-88 (9th Cir.1989) ("We question the appropriateness of [movant's] attempt to use the appellate process to resolve a......
-
Table of Cases
...(D. Md. 1983), §2:30 Beverely v. Douglas , 591 F.Supp. 1321 (S.D.N.Y. 1984), Form 7-29 Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board of Education , 868 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1989), §7:22 Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. , Case No. 08-83029-JAC-11 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 2009), Form 7-52 Billings v. U.S ., 57 F.3d 7......
-
Motions
...preserve the status quo. • The threat of immediate harm cannot be speculative. Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board of Education , 868 F.2d 1085 (9th Cir. 1989). • The plaintiff must establish that the defendant will repeat the wrongful conduct. Farmland Dairies v. McGuire , 789 F.Supp. 1943 (S......