JUDICIAL:

Crane Fortune, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs, v. United States of Am., Defendant., No. 4:17-CV-3323, 2018 WL 6928539 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. CRANE FORTUNE LLC; dba 24 SEVEN # 3; aka MOMIN; aka ALI Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 4:17-CV-3323, 2019 WL 93342 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2019) Plaintiffs seek judicial review of the administrative decision of the Food Nutrition Service (FNS) of the Department of Agriculture permanently disqualifying their convenience store, 24 Seven #3, from participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program(SNAP).  he court recommends that the United States of America’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed with prejudice.
In re Bradford, No. 1:18-CV-00397-BLW, 2019 WL 96221 (D. Idaho Jan. 3, 2019); Before the Court is Plaintiff Ryan and Judy Bradford’s Motion to Withdraw the Reference and Motion to Transfer Venue. The Court granted the motion to withdraw the reference to the extent plaintiffs ask the Court to withdraw the reference when the case is ready for trial but will deny the motion to the extent an immediate withdrawal is sought. The bankruptcy court will preside over all pretrial matters in the proceeding, including the pending motion to transfer venue.
PACKMAN1, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEASONS BEST PRODUCE CORP., et al., Defendants. Additional Party Names: Barker Produce, Jason Canals, Stay Fresh, No. 8:18-CV-816-T-23MAP, 2019 WL 96429 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2019); Packman and Barker Produce sue  the defendants under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) for failing to pay for watermelons and onions. A clerk’s default (Docs. 15–18) was entered against each defendant, and Packman and Barker move for default judgment. Packman and Barker allege the following facts, which were deemed admitted because of the defaults.
In re: DALE EDWARD AKERS Debtor., No. 17-70584, 2019 WL 103956 (Bankr. W.D. Va. Jan. 3, 2019) This matter comes before the Court on confirmation of the Fourth Amended Chapter 12 Plan (the “Fourth Amended Plan”) filed by the Debtor, and the objections thereto filed by Farm Credit of the Virginias, A.C.A. Skyline National Bank, and the Chapter 12 Trustee. The Court held a hearing on these matters on October 17, 2018, and has reviewed supplemental memoranda filed by the Debtor, the Trustee, and Farm Credit.
At issue in this case are two farming operations in which the Debtor actively participates: a produce farm operated by the Debtor, and a general partnership through which the Debtor and his son Ryan Akers raise, buy and sell cattle. The Debtor has financed his farming operations in part through loans from Farm Service Agency, Skyline, and Farm Credit. Those creditors have filed secured claims in this case in the amounts of $97,572.61, $27,872.33, and $227,658.36, respectively. Although the record does not provide an exhaustive background of facts leading to the Debtor’s bankruptcy filing, prior testimony from the Section 341 meetings indicates that his financial difficulties stem, in part, from the payment of a son’s substantial medical bills. The Debtor ultimately sought the protection of the Bankruptcy Code and filed his Chapter 12 petition in this Court on May 3, 2017.
MARCELINA PERALTA & RIGOBERTO MONJARAZ, individually & on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WONDERFUL CITRUS PACKING LLC, Defendant., No. 115CV00263TLNJLT, 2019 WL 95456 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019)
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order Granting Class Certification. Defendant Wonderful Citrus Packing, LLC, opposes Plaintiffs’ motion, and Plaintiffs have replied. The Court hereby denies Plaintiffs’ motion,
Plaintiffs are seasonal field workers who harvested citrus grown at various locations in Kern County for Defendant between 2013 and the present. Defendant employs between 80 and 110 farm labor contractors to supply field workers, such as Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege they were paid on a piece rate basis, which did not include compensation for non-piece work activities, such as standby time, rest time, travel time, or reporting time.
Plaintiffs also allege that “[i]n December 2016, Defendant made safe harbor payments to all workers who performed piece work on any of its crops, including 27,351 putative class members, pursuant to California Labor Code 226.2(b). Plaintiffs allege the safe harbor payments represented the time period of July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2015, and the total amount of safe harbor payments was $2,325,700.50.
Nisei Farmers League v. California Labor & Workforce Dev. Agency, No. F075102, 2019 WL 99087 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2019)

Plaintiffs Nisei Farmers League and California Building Industry Association filed this action in the trial court challenging the constitutional validity of Labor Code1 section 226.2, a recently enacted law articulating wage requirements applicable where an employer uses a piece-rate method of compensating its employees. The complaint was brought against the state labor agencies and agency officials responsible for enforcing the wage law (defendants). In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged among other things that provisions of section 226.2 were so uncertain as to render the statute void for vagueness. Other constitutional challenges to the validity of section 226.2 were premised on allegations that the statute would be applied retroactively. Defendants demurred to the complaint, arguing that the wording of section 226.2 was not unconstitutionally vague and that the other constitutional challenges asserted in plaintiffs’ complaint were without merit because the statute was not retroactive. The trial court agreed with defendants’ analysis, sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, and entered a judgment of dismissal. In doing so, the trial court also declined to grant plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief relating to an affirmative defense created by the statute. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment.
Based on our review of the pertinent issues, the court concludes that plaintiffs failed to allege an adequate basis for finding the statute to be facially unconstitutional. They also concluded that denial of the declaratory relief requested was appropriate. Thus, the demurrer was properly sustained without leave to amend.  The court ruled thejudgment of the trial court affirmed.