Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, No. 16-16321 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

The Ninth Circuit previously affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claim for failure to state a claim under either the Fifth or Fourth Amendments. After plaintiffs petitioned for certiorari, the Supreme Court held that the access regulation, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, 20900(e), appropriates a right to invade the growers' property and therefore constitutes a per se physical taking, and that plaintiffs' complaint thus states a claim for an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

In light of the Supreme Court's decision, the panel reversed the district court's judgment relating to the Fifth Amendment claim. For the reasons stated in Cedar Point Nursery v. Shiroma, 923 F.3d at 534–36, the judgment of the district court dismissing the Fourth Amendment claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is affirmed. The panel remanded for further proceedings.

Court Description: Civil Rights On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the panel reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim for failure to state a claim; affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim; and remanded for further proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the access regulation, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, § 20900(e), “appropriates a right to invade the growers’ property and therefore constitutes a per se physical taking,” and that plaintiffs’ complaint thus “states a claim for an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 2063, 2072 (2021).

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 8, 2019.

Download PDF

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CEDAR POINT NURSERY; FOWLER PACKING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VICTORIA HASSID; ISADORE HALL III; SANTIAGO AVILA-GOMEZ, ESQUIRE; JULIA L. MONTGOMERY; BARRY BROAD; RALPH LIGHTSTONE; CINTHIA N. FLORES; * Defendants-Appellees. No. 16-16321 D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00185LJO-BAM ORDER On Remand from the United States Supreme Court Filed August 4, 2021 Before: Edward Leavy, William A. Fletcher, and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges. Order Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Julia L. Montgomery, Barry Broad, Ralph Lightstone, and Cinthia N. Flores are substituted for their predecessors. * 2 CEDAR POINT NURSERY V. HASSID SUMMARY ** Civil Rights On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the panel reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim for failure to state a claim; affirmed the district court’s judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim; and remanded for further proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the access regulation, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, § 20900(e), “appropriates a right to invade the growers’ property and therefore constitutes a per se physical taking,” and that plaintiffs’ complaint thus “states a claim for an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 2063, 2072 (2021). COUNSEL Wencong Fa, Jeremy Talcott, Joshua P. Thompson, Damien M. Schiff, and Christopher M. Kieser, Pacific Legal Foundation, Sacramento, California; Ian B. Wieland and Howard A. Sagaser, Sagaser Watkins & Wieland PC; Fresno, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. CEDAR POINT NURSERY V. HASSID 3 Douglass J. Woods and Thomas S. Patterson, Senior Assistant Attorneys General; Mark R. Beckington, Supervising Deputy Attorney General; R. Matthew Wise, Deputy Attorney General; Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California; for Defendants-Appellees. Frank Garrison and Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Cato Institute. Steven J. Lechner, Mountain States Legal Foundation, Lakewood, Colorado, for Amicus Curiae Mountain States Legal Foundation. Nancy N. McDonough and Carl G. Borden, California Farm Bureau Federation, Sacramento, California, for Amicus Curiae California Farm Bureau Federation. Mario Martínez, Martínez Aguilasocho & Lynch APLC, Bakersfield, California; Jacob C. Goldberg and Henry M. Willis, Schwartz Steinsapir Dohrmann & Sommers LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Amici Curiae United Farm Workers of America and United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 770. ORDER The Supreme Court recently reversed the judgment in this case, and remanded it to this court for further proceedings. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 2063 (2021). We previously affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claim for failure to state a claim under either the Fifth or Fourth Amendments. Cedar Point Nursery v. 4 CEDAR POINT NURSERY V. HASSID Shiroma, 923 F.3d 524, 526–27 (9th Cir. 2019). Plaintiffs petitioned for certiorari on the Fifth Amendment claim. The Supreme Court held that the access regulation, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, § 20900(e), “appropriates a right to invade the growers’ property and therefore constitutes a per se physical taking,” 141 S.Ct. at 2072, and that Plaintiffs’ complaint thus “states a claim for an uncompensated taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,” id. at 2074. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision, the judgment of the district court relating to the Fifth Amendment claim is reversed. For the reasons stated in Cedar Point Nursery v. Shiroma, 923 F.3d at 534–36, the judgment of the district court dismissing the Fourth Amendment claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is affirmed. This matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. The copy of this order shall act as and for the mandate of this court. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Primary Holding

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment relating to plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment claim.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.