Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Rio Grande Growers Coop., a Corp., San Joaquin Valley Growers Coop., Inc., & Stan Anderson, 564 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Rio Grande Growers Coop., a Corp., San Joaquin Valley Growers Coop., Inc., & Stan Anderson, 564 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United Healthcare Services Incorporated, et al. v. Advanced Reimbursement Solutions LLC, et al. (azd, 2026-03-19)
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#9 12 U.S.C. § 1141j cited 1× in this case · 25 total citations of statute
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United Healthcare Services Incorporated, et al. v. Advanced Reimbursement Solutions LLC, et al.
D. Ariz. · 2026 · confidence medium
But, to the extent these managers and 7 owners act in their separate individual capacities, unrelated to Defaulting Defendants, they 8 cannot be bound by this Court’s permanent injunction because they are not parties to this 9 action. 10 In its reply brief, United asks the Court, in the alternative, to make its permanent 11 injunction binding on “Defaulting Defendants and their agents, employees, and 12 representatives, and all entities and persons, real, fictious, or corporate, and their respective 13 officers, agents, servants, employees, and their successors, and representatives, in con…
examined Cited as authority (rule) WeRide Corp. v. Huang (3×) also: Cited "see"
N.D. Cal. · 2019 · confidence medium
C. v. Rio Grande Growers Co-op., 564 F.2d 848, 849 (9th 22 Cir. 1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ADT LLC v. Northstar Alarm Services, LLC
11th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
See Rule 65(d)(2) (stating that an injunction binds only enumerated parties “who receive actual notice” of the injunction “by personal service or otherwise”); see also Brunswick Corp., 408 F.2d at 337 (binding a nonparty to a consent decree where the nonparty was in privity with a party to the consent decree and had knowledge of the consent decree); Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Rio Grande Growers Co-op., 564 F.2d 848, 849 (9th Cir. 1977) (binding a nonparty to an injunction where the nonparty was a successor to a party to the injunction and *1355 the incorporator of the successor ha…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ADT LLC v. Northstar Alarm Services, LLC
11th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
See Rule 65(d)(2) (stating that an injunction binds only enumerated parties “who receive actual notice” of the injunction “by personal service or otherwise”); see also Brunswick Corp., 408 F.2d at 337 (binding a nonparty to a consent decree where the nonparty was in privity with a party to the consent decree and had knowledge of the consent decree); Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Rio Grande Growers Coop., 564 F.2d 848, 849 (9th Cir. 1977) (binding a nonparty to an injunction where the nonparty was a successor to a party to the injunction and the incorporator of the successor had knowl…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Additive Controls & Measurement Systems, Inc. v. Flowdata, Inc.
Fed. Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Reuter, Inc., 321 U.S. 671, 674 , 64 S.Ct. 826 , 88 L.Ed. 1001 (1944) (injunction may be enforced "against those to whom the business may have been transferred, whether as a means of evading the judgment or for other reasons"); ICC v. Rio Grande Growers Coop., 564 F.2d 848, 849 (9th Cir.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Additive Controls & Measurement Systems, Inc. v. Flowdata, Inc.
Fed. Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Reuter, Inc., 321 U.S. 671, 674 , 64 S.Ct. 826 , 88 L.Ed. 1001 (1944) (injunction may be enforced “against those to whom the business may have been transferred, whether as a means of evading the judgment or for other reasons”); ICC v. Rio Grande Growers Coop., 564 F.2d 848, 849 (9th Cir.1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Operation Rescue National
2d Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Reuter, Inc., 321 U.S. 671, 674 , 64 S.Ct. 826, 828 , 88 L.Ed. 1001 (1944) (“[An injunction] may ..., in appropriate circumstances, be enforced against those to whom the business may have been transferred, whether as a means of evading the judgment or for other reasons.”); ICC v. Rio Grande Growers Coop., 564 F.2d 848, 849 (9th Cir.1977) (successor corporation bound by injunction).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Operation Rescue National
2d Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Reuter, Inc., 321 U.S. 671, 674 , 64 S.Ct. 826, 828 , 88 L.Ed. 1001 (1944) ("[An injunction] may ..., in appropriate circumstances, be enforced against those to whom the business may have been transferred, whether as a means of evading the judgment or for other reasons."); ICC v. Rio Grande Growers Coop., 564 F.2d 848, 849 (9th Cir.1977) (successor corporation bound by injunction). 26 Whether a new organization is the successor of an enjoined organization depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
cited Cited as authority (rule) G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Webster Dictionary Company, Inc.
1st Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
Cf. U. S. v. Miller, 588 F.2d at 1261-62 ; I.C.C. v. Rio Grande Growers Cooperative, 564 F.2d 848, 849 (9th Cir. 1977); Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v. Manoff, 41 F.2d 353 (6th Cir. 1930).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Lawrence Victor Miller, A/K/A Larry Miller (2×)
9th Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
C. v. Rio Grande Growers Cooperative, et al., 564 F.2d 848, 849 (9 Cir. 1977).
discussed Cited "see" Wellman v. Dickinson
S.D.N.Y. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See ICC v. Rio Grande Growers Cooperative, 564 F.2d 848, 849 (9th Cir. 1977). 6 It may well be that the Commission decided there was no need for a permanent injunction against Eberstadt since its settlement with that organization bound the latter to follow a course of conduct in compliance with the law.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." The Coca-Cola Company, a Corporation v. Overland, Inc., Doing Business as Topaz Lodge and Casino, and R.H. Hobson
9th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Interstate Commerce Commission v. Rio Grande Growers Cooperative, 564 F.2d 848, 849 (9th Cir.1977); Shakman v. Democratic Organization, 533 F.2d 344, 351-52 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 858 , 97 S.Ct. 156 , 50 L.Ed.2d 135 (1976). 16 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RIO GRANDE GROWERS COOPERATIVE, a Corporation, Defendant, San Joaquin Valley Growers Coop., Inc., and Stan Anderson, Respondents-Appellants
75-3700.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 17, 1977.
564 F.2d 848
Harrison W. Hertzberg, of Kaplan, Hertzberg & Koslow, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents-appellants., Miles L. Kavaller, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Trask, Wallace, Anderson.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:

In January 1974 the ICC filed a complaint against Rio Grande, alleging that Rio Grande was transporting property without proper authority and that Rio Grande was[*849] not a proper agricultural cooperative to escape ICC regulation. In February 1974 Rio Grande was served with process.

The record shows that Rio Grande was largely financed and operated by Stan Anderson. He characterized himself as “managing agent” (R.T, 105) and at one time represented himself as president.

Stan Anderson abandoned Rio Grande shortly after the ICC began its action. He then incorporated a new corporation called San Joaquin Valley Growers Cooperative, Inc. He was the president, an incorporator, and director of San Joaquin and operated it much the same as he operated Rio Grande. The two companies’ articles of incorporation are nearly identical.

On June 13, 1974, a judgment was entered against Rio Grande which, among other things, perpetually enjoined and restrained Rio Grande from transporting property without authority from the Interstate Commerce Commission or holding itself out as an agricultural cooperative within the meaning of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929 [12 U.S.C. § 1141j],

This injunction was ordered against:

“Rio Grande Valley Growers Cooperative, its agents, employees, and representatives, and all entities and persons, real, fictitious or corporate, and its respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and its successors, and representatives, in concert or participation with it, . . . .”
(C.R. 33) (emphasis added)

Stan Anderson acknowledged receipt of the judgment and injunction in December of 1974. He nevertheless continued to operate the San Joaquin Cooperative.

On October 10, 1975, upon petition of the ICC, an order was filed requiring San Joaquin and Stan Anderson to show cause why they should not be found in civil contempt of the judgment entered on June 13, 1974.

On December 1, 1975, the district court below held both San Joaquin and Stan Anderson in civil contempt. The court also permanently enjoined them from transporting unauthorized property in interstate commerce. They appeal this judgment. We affirm.

We hold that the district court properly found that Stan Anderson and San Joaquin were in contempt of the June 13, 1974, judgment. There is an abundance of evidence in the record which shows that Stan Anderson was an “agent” or “employee” of Rio Grande and that San Joaquin was a “successor” organization to Rio Grande. As such they were bound by the prior permanent injunction and judgment. To find otherwise on this evidence would be to allow San Joaquin and Stan Anderson to nullify the court’s decree and circumvent the ICC’s regulations by carrying out prohibited acts through successive corporations not party to the original actions. This we cannot accept. See, Regal Knitwear Co. v. N. L. R. B., 324 U.S. 9, 14, 65 S.Ct. 478, 89 L.Ed. 661 (1945) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d).

Finding no error or abuse of discretion, we

AFFIRM.