Fouke Co. v. Brown, Civ. S-78-398 PCW.

Decision Date15 January 1979
Docket NumberNo. Civ. S-78-398 PCW.,Civ. S-78-398 PCW.
Citation463 F. Supp. 1142
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
PartiesThe FOUKE COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, and Gary's Leather Creations, Inc., a California Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. Edmund G. BROWN, Jr., Governor and Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Defendants.

Donald M. Pach, Donald M. Pach, Inc., Sacramento, Cal., Wayne B. Wright, McDonald, Wright & Bryan, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiffs.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen. by R. H. Connett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raymond H. Williamson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, Cal., for defendants.

FINAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

WILKINS, District Judge.

This cause coming on to be heard on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment supported by affidavit and brief, and the Defendants having filed no affidavits in contravention of the affidavit of Plaintiffs, and the Court being of the opinion that there are no disputed issues of fact, this Court finds as follows:

Plaintiffs bring this action for a declaratory judgment that California Penal Code Sec. 653o is unconstitutional and that Defendants be restrained from enforcement thereof. California Penal Code Section 653r should also be considered.

California Penal Code, Sec. 653o provides as follows:

Animals; Endangered Species; prohibited imports.
It is unlawful to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body or any part or product thereof, of any alligator, crocodile, polar bear, leopard, ocelot, tiger, cheetah, jaguar, sable antelope, wolf (Canus lupus), zebra, whale, cobra, python, sea turtle, colobus monkey, kangeroo, vicuna, sea otter, free-roaming feral horse, dolphin or porpoise (Delphinidae) or Spanish lynx.
Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine of not less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) and not to exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) or imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed six (6) months, or both such fine and imprisonment, for each violation.

California Penal Code, Sec. 653r provides as follows:

Sale of Endangered Species; Misdemeanor.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 3 of Chapter 1557 of the statutes of 1970, it shall be unlawful to possess with intent to sell, or to sell, within this State, after June 1, 1972, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of any fish, bird, amphibian, reptile, or mammal specified in Sec. 653o or 653p.

Plaintiff The Fouke Company is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal office and processing plant located in Greenville County, South Carolina, where it is engaged in the business of processing, tanning, and marketing hides of alligators and other reptiles.

Plaintiff Gary's Leather Creations, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal office and manufacturing plant located in Los Angeles County, California, where it is engaged in the business of fabricating animal hides into wallets, handbags, and articles of specialty goods.

Plaintiff The Fouke Company has for approximately three years been purchasing the hides of American alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) in the states of Louisiana and Florida, processing and tanning the hides therefrom in its plant in South Carolina, and selling them to fabricators located in various states other than the State of California.

Subsequent to the enactment of California Penal Code Sections 653o and 653r, The Fouke Company has offered, and it desires in the future to offer, processed alligator hides for sale directly to fabricators in California, including plaintiff Gary's Leather Creations, Inc. Fabricators of alligator products in various other states (who are customers of Fouke) also desire to sell alligator hides to wholesale dealers and retail dealers in the State of California for resale to consumers. No one is able to make sales to a California buyer because of said statutes. Wholesalers and retailers as well as fabricators in California know of said California Penal Code Sections and feel that they cannot purchase alligator products because of them. As a result, products of American alligator hides are not now sold or distributed in the State of California, resulting in economic loss and damage to Plaintiffs. Prior to the adoption of said Sections 653o and 653r, tanned and processed American alligator hides were regularly imported into California, fabricated into consumer products in California, and sold to customers within California.

The U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884 et seq., 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1543) was enacted to provide for conservation of domestic and endangered species of fish and wildlife through federal action and through cooperation with state endangered species conservation programs consistent with the federal law.

The Secretary of the Interior, acting on authority of said statutes, has issued detailed regulations with respect to the taking, buying, and tanning of the American alligator (alligator mississippiensis) and the fabricating of products therefrom. See 50 C.F.R. § 17.42. The Fouke Company holds a license, issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of Interior pursuant to said regulations, which authorizes Fouke, as a buyer, tanner, and fabricator of American alligator hides, to purchase, possess, sell or otherwise transfer, and ship (but not export) green and tanned hides and to manufacture said hides into various products.

Sec. 6(f) of the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973 16 U.S.C. § 1535(f) provides, under the heading "Conflicts Between...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Art & Antique Dealers League of Am., Inc. v. Seggos
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 14 Agosto 2019
    ...(9th Cir. 1983) (preemption clause applied in case involving Texas company seeking to sell products in California); Fouke Co. v. Brown , 463 F. Supp. 1142 (E.D. Cal. 1979) (preemption clause applied in case involving Delaware company seeking to sell alligator hides to California company).Pl......
  • Cresenzi Bird Importers, Inc. v. State of NY
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 28 Abril 1987
    ...& Sons, Inc. v. Deukmejian, 702 F.2d 758 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 823, 104 S.Ct. 91, 78 L.Ed.2d 98 (1983); Fouke Co. v. Brown, 463 F.Supp. 1142 (E.D.Cal.1979). Defendant correctly answers that plaintiffs' licenses are not the "permits" or "exceptions" under § 1539 to which § 1535(......
  • April in Paris v. Becerra
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 13 Octubre 2020
    ...General Evelle J. Younger from enforcing Sections 653o and 653r against trade in American alligator parts. Fouke Co. v. Brown , 463 F. Supp. 1142 (E.D. Cal. 1979). At that time, the American alligator was classified as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 ("ESA"), and......
  • Los Altos Boots v. Bonta
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 10 Noviembre 2021
    ...the state from enforcing its ban on alligator hides, and that injunction has never been lifted. See generally Fouke Co. v. Brown , 463 F. Supp. 1142 (E.D. Cal. 1979). In 1983, the Ninth Circuit affirmed judgments from this court and the United States District Court for the Northern District......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Environmental crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 45 No. 2, March 2008
    • 22 Marzo 2008
    ...16 U.S.C. [section][section] 1531-1544 (2000). (603.) Id. [section] 1531(a). (604.) Id. [section] 1531(b); see also Fouke Co. v. Brown, 463 F. Supp. 1142, 1144 (E.D. Cal. 1979) (stating purpose of (605.) 16 U.S.C. [section] 1533(a). (606.) See 50 C.F.R. [section] 424.01 (2007) (stating two ......
  • Environmental crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 43 No. 2, March 2006
    • 22 Marzo 2006
    ...28, 1973, 87 Stat. 884). (568.) 16 U.S.C. [section] 1531(a) (2000). (569.) 16 U.S.C. [section] 1531(b); see also Fouke Co. v. Brown, 463 F. Supp. 1142, 1144 (E.D. Cal. 1979) (stating purpose of (570.) 16 U.S.C. [section] 1533(a). (571.) See 50 C.F.R. [section] 424.01 (2005) (stating two age......
  • Environmental crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 44 No. 2, March 2007
    • 22 Marzo 2007
    ...28, 1973, 87 Stat. 884). (574.) 16 U.S.C. [section] 1531(a) (2000). (575.) 16 U.S.C. [section] 1531(b); see also Fouke Co. v. Brown, 463 F. Supp. 1142, 1144 (E.D. Cal. 1979) (stating purpose of (576.) 16 U.S.C. [section] 1533(a). (577.) See 50 C.F.R. [section] 424.01 (2005) (stating two age......
  • Environmental crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 46 No. 2, March 2009
    • 22 Marzo 2009
    ...1531-1544). (594.) 16 U.S.C. [section] 1531(a) (2006). (595.) 16 U.S.C. [section] 1531(b); see also Fouke Co. v. Brown, 463 F. Supp. 1142, 1144 (E.D. Cal. 1979) (stating purpose of (596.) 16 U.S.C. [section] 1533(a) (2006). (597.) See 50 C.F.R. [section] 424.01 (2008) (stating two agencies ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT