Judicial:

NATHEL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. VINCENT B. ZANINOVICH & SONS, INC., Defendant., No. 118CV00729LJOSAB, 2018 WL 5316154 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2018); On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff Nathel International, Inc. filed this action for breach of contract and under the Perishable AgriculturalCommodities Act (“PACA”), 7 U.S.C. § 499 et seq., against Defendant Vincent B. Zaninovich & Sons, Inc. seeking declaratory judgment. (ECF No. 1.) On July 17, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss which was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. (ECF No. 9.)

ELIZABETH B. POLING, individually & as co-trustee of the ISAIAH D. BARCLAY DEED OF TRUST DATED 5/27/63, & as co-trustee of the GLADYS S. BARCLAY DEED OF TRUST DATED 5/27/63; & EDWARD L. POLING, individually & as co-trustee of the ISAIAH D. BARCLAY DEED OF TRUST DATED 5/27/63, & as co-trustee of the GLADYS S. BARCLAY DEED OF TRUST DATED 5/27/63, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BNY MELLON WEALTH MANAGEMENT; MATTHEW J. WALKER, in his capacity as trust officer for BNY MELLON WEALTH MANAGEMENT; & MARK A. SOLOMON, PARTITION COMMISSIONER, Defendants-Respondents. ALBERT C. BARCLAY, JR., Gen. Partner of Barcland Ltd. P’ship, WILLIAM S. BARCLAY, ELIZABETH M. BARCLAY, & MELLON BANK, NA, co-trustees of the TRUST FOR WILLIAM S. BARCLAY UNDER THE I.D. BARCLAY TRUST AGREEMENT DATED 5/27/63, WILLIAM S. BARCLAY, ELLEN B. DEBLOIS, & I. DAVID BARCLAY, Plaintiffs,, No. A-1502-15T1, 2018 WL 5316092 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Oct. 29, 2018); These back-to-back appeals, consolidated for purposes of our opinion, arise out of a long-running dispute involving the partition by sale of roughly 120 acres of what was once farmland in East Windsor Township, known both as the Chamberlin Farm and the Van Hise Farm (we will use the former appellation).  In A-3507-15, James Clark Poling appeals from three Chancery Division orders entered on December 24, 2015: (1) approving the sale of the last unsold portion of the property, consisting of roughly seven acres; (2) appointing Jonathan M. Preziosi to be partition commissioner, succeeding Mark A. Solomon; and (3) denying James’s cross-motion to dismiss. In A-1502-15, Elizabeth B. Poling appeals from two Chancery Division orders entered on November 6, 2015: (1) dismissing with prejudice her claim against Solomon, enjoining any future litigation against him as partition commissioner, and requiring reimbursement of Solomon’s costs and fees; and (2) dismissing with prejudice her 2015 complaint against defendant BNY Mellon, NA (Mellon), as corporate trustee for the Isaiah D. Barclay Trust and the Gladys S. Barclay Trust, and Matthew J. Walker, in his capacity as a trust officer. Having reviewed James’s and Elizabeth’s arguments in light of the record and applicable principles of law, court affirms in part and reverse in part.
2-BAR RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Montana limited partnership; BROKEN CIRCLE RANCH COMPANY, INC., a Montana profit corporation; R BAR N RANCH, LLC, a Montana limited liability corporation, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, an Agency of the United States Dep’t of Agriculture; SONNY PERDUE, in his official capacity as Sec’y of the United States Dep’t of Agriculture; VICTORIA CHRISTIANSEN, in her official capacity as Interim Chief of the Forest Service; LEANNE MARTEN, in her official capacity as Reg’l Forester for the N. Region; MELANY GLOSSA, in her official capacity as Forest Supervisor for the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Nat’l Forest, State of Montana; CAMERON RASOR, in his official capacity as Dist. Ranger for the Pintler Ranger Dist. in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Nat’l Forest, Defendants., No. CV 18-33-BU-SEH, 2018 WL 5313766 (D. Mont. Oct. 26, 2018); Before the Court is Plaintiffs 2-Bar Ranch Limited Partnership (“2-Bar”), Broken Circle Ranch Company, Inc. (“Broken Circle Ranch”), and R Bar N Ranch, LLC’s (“R Bar N Ranch”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction by which they seek to enjoin the United States Forest Service (“Forest Service”) from enforcing certain livestock grazing management standards against Plaintiffs’ grazing operations on a grazing allotment within the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.1 A hearing on the motion was held on October 10, 2018. The motion denied.
In RE: RUMSEY LAND COMPANY, LLC, Debtor. RUMSEY LAND COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. RESOURCE LAND HOLDING, LLC, SORIN NATURAL RESOURCE PARTNERS, LLC, & PUEBLO BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, LLC, Defendants., No. 16-CV-02117-CMA-SKC, 2018 WL 5312883 (D. Colo. Oct. 26, 2018)
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Resource Land Holding, LLC, and Sorin Natural Resource Partners, LLC’s (collectively, “Defendant RLH”) Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court also addresses Defendant Pueblo Bank and Trust Company, LLC’s (“Defendant PBT”) Motion for Joinder in Support of Defendant RLH’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Defendant RLH’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grants Defendant PBT’s Motion for Joinder.
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, Plaintiff, & CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, Consol.-Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE; et al., Defendants, & MONTANA TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION, AND FUR INFORMATION COUNCIL OF AMERICA, Defendant-Intervenors., No. CV 16-65-M-DWM, 2018 WL 5313770 (D. Mont. Oct. 26, 2018); Plaintiffs WildEarth Guardians and the Center for Biological Diversity (collectively “Plaintiffs”) seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and related officials and entities (collectively the “Service”) for violating the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) in their administration of a wildlife export program under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (“CITES”). Court ruled because the continued administration of the CITES Program does not amount to “major Federal action” triggering NEPA, summary judgment is granted in favor of the Service on Plaintiffs’ NEPAclaims. Plaintiffs prevail, however, on their ESA claims because the incidental take statement for Canada lynx does not set adequate triggers and fails to minimize take.
All. for the Wild Rockies v. United States Forest Serv., No. 16-35829, 2018 WL 5316129 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2018); 

This case is to determine whether the Forest Service’s management direction for a particular section of Idaho’s Payette National Forest is consistent with the management direction that governs the forest as a whole. In September 2014, the United States Forest Service approved the Lost Creek-Boulder Creek Landscape Restoration Project (“Lost Creek Project” or “Project”), which proposed landscape restoration activities on approximately 80,000 acres of the Payette National Forest. Following approval of the Project, Plaintiffs-Appellants the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Idaho Sporting Congress, and Native Ecosystems Council (collectively, “Alliance”) filed suit in federal court, claiming Defendants-Appellees United States Forest Service, Thomas Tidwell, Keith Lannom, and Nora Rasure (collectively, “Forest Service”) violated the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”) by failing to adhere to the requirements of the 2003 Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (“the Payette Forest Plan” or “the 2003 Plan”). The 2003 Plan governs management decisions on all land within the Payette National Forest, including the Lost Creek Project. Specifically, the Alliance claimed that the Forest Service acted inconsistently with the Payette Forest Plan, in a manner that would harm certain habitat within the forest, when it created a new definition for “old forest habitat” and designated certain land to be managed for landscape restoration, as opposed to commodity production. According to the Alliance, although the Lost Creek Project espoused certain environmental benefits, the upshot of these decisions would be an increase in commercial logging and a decrease in habitat protected as “old forest.” The Alliance also claimed the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) by improperly incorporating the analysis of—or “tiering to”—prior agency documents that did not undergo a full NEPA review. Finally, the Alliance claimed the Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) by failing to reinitiate consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the effects on critical habitat for the bull trout.
In its present appeal, the Alliance challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service and Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees Adams County and the Payette Forest Coalition (collectively, “Adams County”). Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Court affirms in part and reverses and remands in part.
Slaubaugh Farm, Inc., et al. v. Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co.,. Additional Party Names: Joseph C. McGowan, No. CV S16C-06-033 ESB, 2018 WL 5473033 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 29, 2018); 

This my decision on Defendant Joseph C. McGowan’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Plaintiffs’ claim that he negligently failed to obtain snow-ice insurance coverage for their two new chicken houses. The Plaintiffs built two new chicken houses and contacted McGowan, an insurance agent for Defendant Farm Family Casualty Insurance Company (“Farm Family”), in an effort to secure insurance from Farm Family. Farm Family issued a binder for an insurance policy on June 30, 2015. The binder did not include snow-ice coverage. However, McGowan contacted Farm Family to see if Farm Family would issue that coverage to the Plaintiffs. One of FarmFamily’s requirements for such coverage is that it would have to first inspect the Plaintiffs’ new chicken houses. McGowan asked FarmFamily to do that. Farm Family acknowledged McGowan’s request and put the Plaintiffs’ new chicken houses on a list to be inspected. Despite that, Farm Family never inspected the Plaintiffs’ chicken houses and McGowan apparently never checked on the status of the inspection. During the weekend of January 23 and 24 of 2016, over six months after McGowan had asked Farm Family to inspect the chicken houses, a blizzard swept through Sussex County, Delaware, causing one of the Plaintiffs’ new chicken houses to collapse.
McGowan argues that (1) he had no duty to acquire snow-ice coverage for the Plaintiffs, (2) he had no duty to make sure that FarmFamily inspected the Plaintiffs’ new’ chicken houses, and (3) the Plaintiffs cannot prove proximate cause because they have not shown that snow-ice coverage was available to them. Court rejected McGowan’s first two arguments and accepted his third.
SECURA Ins. v. Lyme St. Croix Forest Co., LLC, 2018 WI 103
The petitioner, SECURA Insurance, A Mutual Company, seeks review of an unpublished, per curiam decision of the court of appeals affirming the circuit court’s interlocutory order that determined the fire at issue constituted multiple occurrences instead of a single occurrence. The court of appeals reasoned that under Secura’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy there was an occurrence each time the fire spread to a new piece of real property and caused damage. Therefore, the court concluded that the $2 million aggregate limit applies rather than the $500,000 per-occurrence limit for property damage due to fire arising from logging and lumbering operations.
In re: JERRY CHOEZ & ROSALIN CHOEZ, Debtors. ALLIANCE SHIPPERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. JERRY CHOEZ, Defendant. JERRY CHOEZ, Counter-Claimant,, No. 15-45404-ESS, 2018 WL 5603571 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2018); 

Before the Court is the amended complaint of plaintiff Alliance Shippers, Inc. (“Alliance”) and the counterclaim of Jerry Choez in this adversary proceeding. Alliance seeks a determination that the debt that Mr. Choez initially owed to Alliance’s predecessor-in-interest, Felix Produce Corp. (“Felix Produce”), and now owes to Alliance, is nondischargeable under Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(4). Mr. Choez seeks a declaratory judgment that the default judgment entered on September 14, 2009, in Felix Produce Corp. v. New Lots Food Corp. and Jerry Choez, Docket No. 08-CV-5161, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, is void for lack of personal jurisdiction.
On January 26, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Pre-Trial Statement identifying two issues to be determined at trial – whether a trust was created under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”); and if so, whether Mr. Choez committed a fiduciary defalcation with respect to that trust.
The trial of this action took place on July 16 and 17, 2018, and the Court heard testimony from two witnesses, a senior Alliance executive and Mr. Choez. Post-trial briefing was completed on August 20, 2018, and the record is now closed.
CRYSTAL HILSLEY, on behalf of herself & all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC.; ARNOLD WORLDWIDE LLC; & DOES defendants 1 through 5, inclusive, Defendants., No. 17CV2335-GPC(MDD), 2018 WL 5617701 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2018); The action was removed to this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act on November 16, 2017. Plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) brings a purported consumer class action against Defendants Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. and Arnold Worldwide LLC for violations of California consumer protection laws based on misrepresentation of labels on certain Ocean Spray products. Defendant Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. (“Ocean Spray”) manufactures, distributes, advertises, markets and sells a variety of juices and juice-based beverage products. Defendant Arnold Worldwide LLC (“Arnold”) participates in the labeling and advertising of these products for Ocean Spray.  According to Plaintiff, the labels on Defendants’ juice-based beverage products labeled “Cran-Apple” and “Cran-Grape” states “No…artificial flavors.” The Cran-Apple juice drink includes fumaric acid and malic acid as ingredients. The Cran-Grape juice drink contains fumaric acid. According to Plaintiff, the Cran-Apple juice drink contains an artificial ingredient called d-l malic acid.  “Malic acid is an organic compound with the molecular formula C2H6O5.  Natural malic acid, also known as l-malic acid, is found naturally in many fruits and vegetables. Dl-malic acid is a racemic mixture that does not occur naturally but is produced synthetically by “hydration of fumaric acid or maleic acid.” The complaint alleges that Ocean Spray uses a synthetic form of fumaric acid to simulate the flavor of grapes in its Cran-Grape product.

TAUNYA MILLER, Plaintiff, v. SONNY PERDUE, Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Defendant., No. 2:17-CV-00670-SU, 2018 WL 5503928 (D. Or. Oct. 29, 2018); Pro se plaintiff brings this action against defendant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, alleging that defendant violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691-1691f, by improperly denying plaintiff’s farm Microloan applications on the basis of sex/gender and age. Plaintiff has moved for partial summary judgment, and defendant has moved for summary judgment. The Court heard oral argument on July 20, 2018. At the hearing, the Court denied plaintiff’s Motion. Subsequently, the Court ordered, and the parties submitted, supplemental briefing. For the following reasons, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Regulatory:
Notice: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Lime Manufacturing (EPA ICR No. 1167.12, OMB Control No. 2060-0063), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2018. Public comments were previously requested, via the Federal Register, on June 29, 2017 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Info HERE
Notice, request for comment: Forest Service, USDA; In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the new information collection; Whole Enchilada Trail: Conditions, User Experience & Comment Survey 2019. Info HERE
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement: Forest Service, USDA; The Payette National Forest will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to document the potential effects of the Granite Meadows Project. The Granite Meadows Project is located north of New Meadows, Idaho and north and west of McCall, Idaho on the Boise Meridian, within Adams, Valley and Idaho Counties. The analysis will evaluate and disclose the effects of implementing treatments on the National Forest to meet the purpose and need for the project. Proposed treatments include timber harvest, thinning, prescribed fire, road treatments and road decommissioning, watershed improvement and restoration treatments, and recreation improvements. Coordination with existing permittees on grazing schedules would also be included to meet the purpose and need related to fuels reduction. Info HERE
Notice and request for comments: Rural Business—Cooperative Service, USDA; In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Rural Business—Cooperative Service, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA), invites comments on this information collection for which the Agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Info HERE
Notice and request for comments: Rural Utilities Service, USDA; In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which RUS intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Info HERE

Legislation:

H.R. 5513: Big Bear Land Exchange Act: To provide for an exchange of lands with San Bernardino County, California, to enhance management of lands within the San Bernardino National Forest, and for other purposes. Info HERE