Chidsey v. Guerin, 20732.
Decision Date | 07 June 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 20732.,20732. |
Citation | 443 F.2d 584 |
Parties | Harland W. CHIDSEY, d/b/a Harland W. Chidsey Farms, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bert A. GUERIN, d/b/a Bert Geurin, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Edward M. Yampolsky, Berrien County Legal Services, St. Joseph, Mich. (Alan W. Houseman, Jonathon M. Rutledge, Michigan Legal Services Assistance Program, Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellant.
Daniel Joseph, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (L. Patrick Gray, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alan S. Rosenthal, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., John P. Milanowski, U. S. Atty., Grand Rapids, Mich., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and EDWARDS and PECK, Circuit Judges.
The Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. § 499a et seq., requires the licensing of commission merchants, dealers and brokers in perishable commodities. Any licensee who violates the Act is liable to the person or persons injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained in consequence of such violation. The Secretary of Agriculture is empowered to issue a reparation order requiring an offending party to pay damages that he determines to be due.
As a prerequisite to obtaining judicial review of a reparation order in a United States District Court, the licensee must post a bond for double the amount of the reparation award.
The question presented on this appeal is whether the bond requirement violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment when applied against a licensee who desires to appeal a reparation order issued against him, but who lacks sufficient assets to post the required bond.
Geurin, the appellant, is a resident of Michigan licensed under the Act. Chidsey, the appellee, is a farmer whose address is R.D. #1, Penn Yan, New York. The Secretary issued a reparation order against Geurin ordering him to pay Chidsey, the seller of a shipment of tomatoes, the sum of $960.90, which the Secretary determined to be due under the contract of sale. Geurin undertook to appeal to the District Court but failed to post bond because of an asserted lack of sufficient assets to do so. District Judge Noel P. Fox dismissed the action for failure to post bond. 314 F.Supp. 480.
We affirm.
The provision of the statute under attack on this appeal is 7 U.S.C. § 499g(c), which provides in pertinent part as follows:
The Statute was amended in 1962 by Public Law 87-725, 76 Stat. 673, with the intent "to make it clear that an appeal from, a reparation award of the Secretary shall not be effective as an appeal, and therefore not a matter within the jurisdiction of the district court of the United States in which the petition is filed, unless the required bond is filed with the court within 30 days from and after the date of the Secretary's order." (Emphasis added.) H.R.Rep. 1546, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962).
The standard to be applied to determine whether the bond requirement violates Guerin's Fifth Amendment guarantee of due process of law depends upon the nature of Geurin's interest which is adversely affected. If the affected interest is a fundamental right, it may not be frustrated by a legislative classification based on wealth in the absence of a "countervailing governmental interest of overriding significance." Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 377, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113.1 The standard was phrased in terms of "a compelling governmental interest" in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600.
If the affected interest is not considered to be a fundamental right, due process demands only that Congressional circumscription of the interest have some "reasonable basis." Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 484-86, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491. See, James v. Valtierra, 401 U.S., 91 S.Ct. 1331, 28 L.Ed.2d 678; Boyden v. Commissioner of Patents, 441 F.2d 1041 (D.C.Cir.).
We first must determine if a fundamental right of Geurin has been prejudiced by the bond requirement.
All brokers of perishable agricultural commodities as defined by the Act must be licensed by the Secretary. 7 U.S.C. § 499a, c, d. Once a reparation order is issued against a broker, the broker must either pay the reparation awarded, appeal therefrom to the District Court, or suffer the suspension of his license. 7 U.S.C. § 499g(d). A reparation order does not represent an enforceable obligation to make payment of a sum of money. Thus, a broker who does not comply and who lacks sufficient assets to post the bond required for an appeal to the district court suffers only the suspension of his license. The suspension is effective from two to three years, after which the broker's privileges under the Act are restored fully. 7 U.S.C. § 499d(c).
The only interest of Geurin which is threatened by the bond requirement is the privilege of engaging in the business of a broker of perishable agricultural commodities during the next two or three years. This interest does not approach the fundamental nature of the rights at stake in Boddie v. Cennecticut, supra, (dissolution of marriage); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 630, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (interstate travel); Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 667, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (vote); Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 712, 81 S.Ct. 895, 6 L.Ed.2d 39 ( ); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 16, 76 S. Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 ( ). The possible prejudice to Geurin is nothing more or less than a restriction of his available employment or business opportunities.
In Dandridge v. Williams, supra, the Supreme Court stated at 484-486, 90 S. Ct. at 1161-1162:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mahaley v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority
...409 U. S. 898, 93 S.Ct. 178, 34 L.Ed.2d 156 (1972); English v. Town of Huntington, 448 F.2d 319 (2d Cir. 1971); Cf. Chidsey v. Guerin, 443 F.2d 584 (6th Cir. 1971). The plaintiffs contend that their fundamental rights have been violated. They do not contend that there is a right to safe and......
-
Haak v. United States
...the community. A classification is sustainable under the fifth amendment provided it is supported by a rational basis. Chidsey v. Geurin, 443 F.2d 584 (6th Cir. 1971).6 The Court finds that plaintiffs' argument has some merit. The community and the church undoubtedly receive certain benefit......
-
O'BRIEN v. Trevethan
...In re Garland, 428 F.2d 1185 (1st Cir. 1970), cert denied 402 U.S. 966, 91 S.Ct. 1624, 29 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971). But cf. Chidsey v. Guerin, 443 F.2d 584 (6th Cir. 1971). Finally, as both the Smith and Kras courts concluded with regard to the initial $50.00 filing fees, the referee may, constit......
-
O'Day v. George Arakelian Farms, Inc.
...vulnerable to the sharp practices of financially irresponsible and unscrupulous brokers in perishable commodities." Chidsey v. Guerin, 443 F.2d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 1971). 1 Accordingly, certain conduct by commission merchants, dealers, or brokers is declared to be unlawful. 7 U.S.C. § 499b. ......
-
Agricultural Lending in a Troubled Economy
...499(a)-(s). See, e.g., George Steinberg & Son, Inc. v. Butz, 491 F.2d 988 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 830 (1974); Chidsey v. Geurin, 443 F.2d 584 (6th Cir. 1971); O'Day v. George Arakelian Farms, Inc., 536 F.2d 856 (9th Cir. 1976). 80. The intent of the 1984 amendments to the PACA is ......