U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
Section 1 provides:Persons engaged in the production of agricultural products as farmers, planters,ranchmen, dairymen, nut or fruit growers may act together in associations, corporateor otherwise, with or without capital stock, in collectively processing, preparing formarket, handling, and marketing in interstate and foreign commerce, such products of persons so engaged. Such associations may have marketing agencies in common; andsuch associations and their members may make the necessary contracts andagreements to effect such purposes:
, That such associations areoperated for the mutual benefit of the members thereof, as such producers, andconform to one or both of the following requirements:First. That no member of the association is allowed more than one vote because of theamount of stock or membership capital he may own therein, or,Second. That the association does not pay dividends on stock or membership capitalin excess of 8 per centum per annum.And in any case to the following:Third. That the association shall not deal in the products of nonmembers to anamount greater in value than such as are handled by it for members.7 U.S.C. § 291 (emphasis in original)
3court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
, 556 U.S.662, 678 (2009) (citing
, 550 U.S. at 556). “The plausibilitystandard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibilitythat a defendant has acted unlawfully.... When a complaint pleads facts that are merelyconsistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility andplausibility of entitlement to relief.”
, 550 U.S. at 557) (internal quotationmarks omitted). If the allegations are insufficient to state a claim, a court should grant leave toamend, unless amendment would be futile.
See, e.g., Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc.
, 912 F.2d 291,296 (9th Cir. 1990);
Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv., Inc.
, 911 F.2d 242,246-47 (9th Cir. 1990).
B.Defendants’ Motion.1.Whether the Secretary of Agriculture has Exclusive or PrimaryJurisdiction.
Section 1 of the Capper-Volstead Act provides agricultural cooperatives with a limitedexception to liability for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act.
Section 2 provides forprocedures by which the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (“Secretary”)may act if he or she has reason to believe that any such association described in Section 1
Case3:11-cv-04766-JSW Document123 Filed10/30/12 Page3 of 11