Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board of Educ. of Anchorage School Dist., Anchorage, Alaska
| Decision Date | 28 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-4018,88-4018 |
| 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. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
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.
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).
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. Chronical Publishing Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1376 (9th Cir.1985) (Oakland Tribune ); Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 752-53 (9th Cir.1982) (Sports Form ). The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction lies within the discretion of the district court. United States v. Odessa Union Warehouse Co-op, 833 F.2d 172, 174 (9th Cir.1987), (Odessa Union ); Zepeda v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, 753 F.2d 719, 724 (9th Cir.1983) (Zepeda ); Sports Form, 686 F.2d at 752. We will reverse "only if the district court relied on an erroneous legal premise or abused its discretion." Sports Form, 686 F.2d at 752. We will not reverse merely because we would have arrived at a different result. Id.
The district court relies on an erroneous legal premise "if the court does not employ the appropriate legal standards which govern the issuance of a preliminary injunction." Id., citing Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir.1980). " Sports Form, 686 F.2d at 752, quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 823, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971) (citations omitted).
We emphasize again the limited scope of our review of a district court order granting or denying a preliminary injunction. We do so because we are concerned that parties appeal such orders for the purpose of ascertaining, prematurely, our views on the merits. As we repeatedly have cautioned, our disposition in these appeals offers little if any guidance on the proper resolution of the underlying merits. Caribbean Marine, 844 F.2d at 673; Zepeda, 753 F.2d at 724; Sports Form, 686 F.2d at 753. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve rights pending resolution of the merits of the case by the trial. It ordinarily does not obviate the need to proceed with preparation for trial and trial. An appeal of the district court's decision on a motion for a preliminary injunction often will result in unnecessary delay to the parties and inefficient use of judicial resources. In this case, for example, Big Country probably could have secured a disposition on the merits of a motion for a permanent injunction in less time than it took to proceed with this appeal. It appears, however, that this case has lain dormant in the district court: Big Country has done nothing towards resolving its action for permanent relief. We question the appropriateness of Big Country's attempt to use the appellate process to resolve a question that must first be resolved in the district court. Apparently Big Country did not heed our admonitions in Caribbean Marine, Zepeda, and Sports Form.
To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party must show either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) that serious questions are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Tenakee Springs v. Clough
... ... CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, the Sierra Club, the ... Alaska corporation, and Whitestone Logging, Inc., Intervenors-Defendants ... Sam HANLON, Sr., ... , Joseph Johnson, Alaska Legal Services, Anchorage, Alaska, for Hanlon plaintiffs ... Compare Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Educ., 552 F.2d 1326, 1328 (9th Cir.1977) ... Yukon Flats School Dist. v. Native Village of Venetie, 856 F.2d ... Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of Anchorage School ... would not provide APC with 550 million board-feet ("mmbf") of timber during the last three ... ...
-
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. GROUP INS. ADMIN.
... ... ADMINISTRATION,Appellee.QUALITY DENTAL PLANS, INC., Appellant, v. GROUP INSURANCE ... still pending before the Contract Appeals Board (CAB or Board). Although we conclude that the ... ARCO Alaska, Inc., 782 F.2d 800, 801 (9th Cir. 1986) (appeal ... § 1651(a) (1988). In FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 603-05, 86 S.Ct. 1738, 1742, ... See Big Country Foods v. Board of Educ. of Anchorage Sch. Dist., ... ...
-
Churchill Village, L.L.C. v. General Elec. Co.
... ... news release to radio stations across the country, and provided a telephone line and interactive ... See Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th ... See Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board of Educ., 868 F.2d 1085, 1088 ... ...
-
Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky
... ... ; Rosemarie Duffy, Members of the Washington Board of Pharmacy; Ellis Casson; Deborah Sious ... v. McCain Foods, Ltd., 941 F.2d 970, 974 (9th Cir.1991), "[a]n ... the definition of a case or controversy." Alaska Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Feldman, ... Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1138 (9th ... Educ. Ass'n v. Wash. State Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, ... , the Court concluded that requiring public school children to salute the flag as part of a daily ... Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594, 60 S.Ct. 1010, ... Cf. Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Anchorage Sch ... ...
-
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......
-
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......