United States v. Guimond Farms, Inc., Civ. A. No. 61-901-F.

• Decision Date: 15 March 1962
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 61-901-F.
• Citation: 203 F. Supp. 471
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. GUIMOND FARMS, INC.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

203 F. Supp. 471

UNITED STATES of America v. GUIMOND FARMS, INC.

Civ. A. No. 61-901-F.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

March 15, 1962.

W. Arthur Garrity, Jr., U. S. Atty., Paul J. Redmond, Asst. U. S. Atty., for plaintiff.

Richard C. Levin, Levin & Levin, Fall River, Mass., Harold Katz, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

FRANCIS J. W. FORD, District Judge.

This is an action under § 8a(6) of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, 7 U.S.C.A. § 608a (6), to enforce an order of the Secretary of Agriculture issued under the act. The complaint asks injunctive relief to compel defendant to comply with requirements of the act as to reports and payments to the producer-settlement fund and to restrain defendant from handling milk in violation of the order. The United States has moved for partial summary judgment for the sum of $30,447.30 with interest thereon, this being the amount which the marketing administrator has found to be due from the defendant to the producer-settlement fund. Defendant moves the court to stay an order for partial summary judgment pending determination of defendant's petition under 7 U.S.C.A. § 608c(15) (A).

Both sides rely on United States v. Ruzicka, 329 U.S. 287, 67 S.Ct. 207, 91 L.Ed. 290. As pointed out in that case, the act provides for enforcement of orders issued under it by a proceeding under § 608a(6) and it is not open to defendant to challenge in such a proceeding the correctness of the order. Such a challenge may only be made by an independent petition under 608c(15) (A) with opportunity for review by the district court of the ruling of the Secretary of Agriculture on such a petition. Section 608c(15) (B) provides that, "The pendency of proceedings instituted pursuant to this subsection shall not impede, hinder, or delay the United States or the Secretary of Agriculture from obtaining relief pursuant to section 608a(6) of this title." Hence in Ruzicka the court held that defendant could not challenge in the 608a(6) proceedings the correctness of the order sought to be enforced.

In Ruzicka the defendant had filed in the district court a motion for a stay similar to that filed in the present action. In Ruzicka, however, the motion was withdrawn and the Supreme Court specifically pointed out that it did not therefore pass on the question of whether the district court under its inherent power as a court of equity would have power to grant such a stay. The court does, however, cite Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 316 U.S. 4, 62 S.Ct. 875, 86 L.Ed. 1229, and Hecht Company v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 64 S.Ct. 587, 88 L.Ed....