杏十八新茶分享

 

Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc.

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Law
  • Date Filed: 08-07-2012
  • Case #: 10-16448
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: District Judge Wu for the Court; Circuit Judges Fisher and Rawlinson

The USDA possesses sufficient regulatory authority over "agency-set minimum prices for raw milk" to make applicable the filed rate doctrine. The USDA鈥檚 expression of disapproval of prices set, while not necessarily an explicit rejection, may preclude application of the doctrine.

Gerald Carlin, a dairy farmer, and other national dairy farmers brought a class action suit against DairyAmerica, Inc. (鈥淒airyAmerica鈥) and California Dairies, Inc., alleging 鈥渘egligent misrepresentation and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage,鈥 violation of California Business Practices, and unjust enrichment, all under California common law. Carlin鈥檚 complaint was based on 鈥渆rroneous reports鈥 published by DairyAmerica, which 鈥減ushed minimum prices paid to milk producers noticeably lower than they would have been otherwise鈥o the detriment of plaintiff dairy farmers.鈥 The district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to the filed rate doctrine. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit considered two issues: (1) whether the filed rate doctrine is applicable in a class action lawsuit arising from 鈥渕isreporting price data to the United States Department of Agriculture, where the data in turn were used to set a minimum price structure for raw milk sales鈥 and (2) if applicable, did the district court err in dismissing Carlin鈥檚 complaint. First, the Ninth Circuit found that the filed rate doctrine did apply as the 鈥淯SDA did possess the authority and did exercise it to address problems as to the agency-set minimum prices for raw milk;鈥 thus, providing 鈥渆nough regulation to justify federal preemption.鈥 However, the Ninth Circuit determined that the USDA鈥檚 actions, in 鈥渞ecognizing that earlier filed rates were incorrect at the time they were filed,鈥 鈥渃onstituted sufficient rejection鈥 of the prior minimum prices 鈥渟uch that the filed rate doctrine is not a bar.鈥 The district court was correct in finding that the filed rate doctrine applied, but erred in determining that it applied to Carlin鈥檚 state-law claims. REVERSED and REMANDED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top