Cedar Point Nursery; Fowler Packing Company, Inc . v. Victoria Hassid

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
C EDAR P OINT NURSERY; FOWLER
P ACKING C OMPANY, INC .,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
VICTORIA HASSID; ISADORE HALL
III; S ANTIAGO AVILA-G OMEZ,
ESQUIRE; J ULIA L. M ONTGOMERY;
B ARRY B ROAD ; R ALPH LIGHTSTONE;
C INTHIA N. FLORES ;*
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-16321
D.C. No.
1:16-cv-00185-
LJO-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.

-- 1 of 4 --

2 C EDAR P OINT 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.

-- 2 of 4 --

C EDAR P OINT 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.

-- 3 of 4 --

4 C EDAR P OINT 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.

-- 4 of 4 --