JUDICIAL:

IN RE: WAYNE BAILEY, INC., Debtor., No. 18-00284-5-SWH, 2019 WL 137110 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Jan. 8, 2019)The matter before the Court is the “Objection to PACA Claim No. 80 Filed by Millstream Farming, Inc.” (“Objection”) filed by Wayne Bailey, Inc. (“Debtor”) on June 6, 2018. A response to the Objection was filed by Millstream Farming, LLC (“Millstream”) on June 29, 2018
PACA Tr. Creditors of Lenny Perry’s Produce, Inc. v. Genecco Produce Inc., No. 17-1949-CV, 2019 WL 137718 (2d Cir. Jan. 9, 2019) The plaintiffs and the defendants are creditors of debtor Lenny Perry’s Produce, Inc. (“LPP”). Between 2005 and 2008, defendant Genecco Produce, Inc., (“GPI”) and debtor LPP regularly sold produce to one another. Because the goods were perishable agricultural commodities, these transactions were governed by the federal Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. § 499 (“PACA”).
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Reynolds, No. 417CV00362JEGHCA, 2019 WL 140069 (S.D. Iowa Jan. 9, 2019) This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (CCI), Bailing Out Benji, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. (PETA), and Center for Food Safety (CFS) (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed the first motion, ECF No. 49, which Defendants resist. Defendants Kimberly Reynolds, Tom Miller, and Bruce Swanson (collectively, Defendants), filed the second motion, which Plaintiffs resist. The parties agree that this matter is appropriate for resolution by summary judgment with each contending they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No party requested a hearing, and the Court finds a hearing unnecessary. The matter is fully submitted and ready for disposition.  Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, was granted, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, was denied, and the remaining due process claim in Count III was dismissed.
WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., et al. v. EASTERN MUSHROOM MARKETING COOPERATIVE, et al. Additional Party Names: Bella Mushroom Farms, Bi-Lo Holdings, LLC, Brownstone Mushroom Farms, C & C Carriage Mushroom Co., Cardile Bros., Cardile Mushrooms, Country Fresh Mushroom Co., Creekside Mushrooms Ltd., Forest Mushroom Inc., Franklin Farms, Gaspari Bros. Inc., Gino Gaspari & Sons, Giorgi Mushroom Co., Harvest Fresh Farms, JM Farms, John Pia, Kaolin Mushroom Farms, Kitchen Pride Mushroom Farms, Louis M. Marson Jr., M.D. Basciani & Sons, Mario Cutone Mushroom Co., Michael Pia, Modern Mushroom Farms, Monterey Mushrooms, Mushrooms Packaging, Oakshire Mushroom Farm, Phillips Mushroom Farms, Quincy Farms, Robert A. Feranto, Jr., Sher-Rockee Mushroom Farm, S. Mill Mushroom Sales, To- Jo Fresh Mushrooms, To-Jo Mushrooms, No. CV 15-6480, 2019 WL 130535 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2019)
Winn-Dixie Plaintiffs filed this action on December 7, 2015, while a motion for class certification was pending in the much-earlier-filed antitrust cases in In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation (“In re Mushroom Litigation” or “Class Litigation”), consolidated at Civil Action No. 06-620. Like that litigation, this case centers on allegations that the Eastern Mushroom Marketing Cooperative (“EMMC”), its members, and certain non-member distributors acted in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act by conspiring to set artificially-inflated prices for fresh Agaricus mushrooms and implementing a supply control scheme related to the production of mushrooms. Winn-Dixie Plaintiffs allege that, during the conspiracy, they “purchased Agaricus mushrooms directly from one or more Defendants.” They are pursuing non-class relief and seek “to recover damages related to the payment of artificially-inflated prices for the mushrooms they purchased…due to the illegal price-fixing scheme and conspiracy by EMMC and its members, with the participation of various nonmember third-parties.” Winn-Dixie Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that “EMMC members formed EMMC as a front in order to engage in naked price-fixing, collectively fixed artificially-inflated prices at which its members would sell their products,” and operated primarily “to set the prices at which its members individually sold their products.” They contend that “[s]hortly after its formation, EMMC’s members agreed to set increased minimum prices at which its members and nonmembers would sell fresh mushrooms in six different geographic regions, covering the entire continental United States” and that the agreed-upon minimum prices “were higher, on average, than the prices prevailing in those regions prior to EMMC’s formation.” Winn-Dixie Plaintiffs also allege that “EMMC members were able to pressure non-EMMC members to force independent growers to join EMMC…or to refrain from selling mushrooms at lower prices that would undermine the agreed-upon anticompetitive prices.” They contend that “EMMC members” did so by “threatening and/or implementing a group boycott in which they would not sell mushrooms to other growers who needed them to meet short-term supply needs and/or selling mushrooms to such independent growers at inflated prices.”
FRESKA PRODUCE, INTERNATIONAL LLC, Plaintiff, v. ALEJANDRO PRODUCE, INC., et al., Defendants. Additional Party Names: Alejandro Silva, Alejandro’s Taco Shop, Luna Ibarra, Maria Refugio, No. 3:18-CV-1205 W (BLM), 2019 WL 157682 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2019) 

The following factual allegations are taken from the Complaint and declarations filed in support of the motion.
On July 27, 2017, Plaintiff Freska Produce International, LLC (“Freska”) sold $22,800.00 in avocados to Defendant Alejandro Produce, Inc. pursuant to an oral agreement regarding quantities and price. The avocados were from Mexico. Freska sent an invoice to Alejandro Produce for the avocados. The invoice included a provision for payment of attorneys’ fees, costs and pre-judgment interest at a rate of 18% per annum in the event of default. The invoice also included a statement preserving Freska’s rights as a trust beneficiary of Alejandro Produce under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (“PACA”), as amended, 7 U.S.C. §§ 499a-t.
NATIONAL FAMILY FARM COALITION; CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY; CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA, Petitioners, v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; ANDREW WHEELER, in his official capacity as Acting Adm’r, Respondents, MONSANTO COMPANY, Respondent-Intervenor., No. 17-70196, 2019 WL 157565 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2019) 

On August 29, 2018, this Court heard oral arguments in this case challenging the EPA’s registration of the product XtendiMax, a dicamba-based herbicide produced by Bayer CropScience (formerly Monsanto Company), for post-emergent uses on cotton and soybean plants. The EPA’s then-current registration was set to expire on November 9, 2018. On November 1, 2018, the EPA issued its decision to continue the registration of dicamba for post-emergent uses, including the product XtendiMax.
On November 2, 2018, Respondent-Intervenor Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”) moved to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction based on mootness (Dkt. 152). On November 13, 2018, Petitioners filed their opposition to Monsanto’s motion (Dkt. 155), arguing their petition was not moot. Also on November 13, 2018, Respondent EPA filed a response to Monsanto’s motion (Dkt. 154), agreeing that the petition was moot and attaching the EPA’s “Registration Decision for the Continuation of Uses of Dicamba on Dicamba Tolerant Cotton and Soybean.”
The Court dismiss the petition as moot. The Court recognizes that Petitioners may face the obstacle of bringing a challenge to the EPA’s registration decision before the expiration of the current registration. Accordingly, if Petitioners bring a challenge in this Court to the 2018 registration decision of the EPA, we direct the Clerk of the Court to set an expedited schedule for briefing and oral argument.
HART OF TEXAS CATTLE FEEDERS, LLC, JAMES MICHAEL HAYES, INDIVIDUALLY, LYNN LANDRUM, INDIVIDUALLY, AND HENRY O. PICKETT II, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS V. BONSMARA NATURAL BEEF COMPANY, LLC AND GEORGE CHAPMAN, APPELLEES, No. 07-17-00453-CV, 2019 WL 150639 (Tex. App. Jan. 9, 2019)  Appellants, Hart of Texas Cattle Feeders, LLC, and its owners, James Michael Hayes, Lynn Landrum, and Henry O. Pickett II, appeal from a judgment issued in favor of Appellees, Bonsmara Natural Beef Company, LLC and its president, George Chapman, following a jury trial of various causes of action arising out of a custom cattle feeding agreement (the “Agreement”) between Castro County Feeders I, Ltd. (Hart’s predecessor) and Bonsmara. By its verdict, the jury found that both Hart and Bonsmara failed to comply with the terms of the Agreement and it made findings regarding the damages proximately caused by the respective breaches. The jury also determined that Hayes, Landrum, and Pickett were individually responsible for damages caused by Hart’s conduct. After off-setting the damage awards, the trial court awarded Bonsmara and Chapman a net recovery of $366,445.70, plus court costs and attorney’s fees in the sum of $227,272.25, through trial. The judgment also awarded Bonsmara and Chapman recovery of contingent attorney’s fees in the event of an unsuccessful appeal of the trial court’s judgment. By this appeal, Hart, Hayes, Landrum, and Pickett raise eight issues. Because the first issue, i.e., whether the trial court erred when it denied Hart’s motion to arbitrate the dispute in this suit per the terms of the Agreement, is dispositive of this appeal, we will only consider that issue. Our disposition of that issue renders moot Bonsmara and Chapman’s cross-appeal asserting the evidence was insufficient to award Hart any offsetting damages for its breach of contract cause of action. The court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause to the trial court with instructions to render an order compelling the parties to arbitrate their dispute.

LEGISLATIVE:

H.R. 316: To authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to issue permits for recreation services on lands managed by Federal agencies, and for other purposes. Info HERE

H.R. 401: To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to release reversionary and reserved interests in certain lands within the Coconino National Forest, Arizona. Info HERE

H.R. 381: To direct the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of General Services to modernize terms in certain regulations. Info HERE

S. 43: A bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer certain National Forest System land in the States of Texas. Info HERE

H.R. 343: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to transfer certain National Forest System land in the State of Texas. Info HERE

H.R. 346: To survey the gradient boundary along the Red River in the States of Oklahoma and Texas, and for other purposes. Info HERE

H.R. 278: To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain facilities, easements, and rights-of-way to the Kennewick Irrigation District, and for other purposes. Info HERE

H.R. 272: To prevent States and local jurisdictions from interfering with the production and distribution of agricultural products in interstate or foreign commerce, and for other purposes. Info HERE