A comprehensive summary of today’s judicial, legislative, and regulatory developments in agriculture and food. Email important additions HERE.
Crosthwait Planting Co. v. Snipes, No. 4:17-CV-141-SA-JMV, 2018 WL 4471767 (N.D. Miss. Sept. 18, 2018); Crop Insurance case was originally filed in state court, and then removed to federal court. Both of the Plaintiffs are citizens of Mississippi, and Defendant is also a citizen of Mississippi. Despite this lack of diversity, the Defendants nevertheless claim removal is proper, arguing that a Defendant was improperly joined for the express purpose of defeating diversity jurisdiction. Court remanded case back to state court.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. HIGH PLAINS LIVESTOCK, LLC, dba PRODUCERS LIVESTOCK AUCTION, MICHAEL FLEN, CALVIN PAREO, & DARCIE PAREO, Defendants., No. CIV 15-0680 MCA/JHR, 2018 WL 4489292 (D.N.M. Sept. 19, 2018);
This matter comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition on Motion Requesting Reimbursement, filed August 9, 2018, which recommends that this Court deny Defendant High Plain Livestock’s (“HPL’s”) Motion Requesting Reimbursement of Payments to Co-Special Master Johnson Miller & Co. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), HPL filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (“PFRD”). The Court, having conducted a de novo review of HPL’s objections, hereby overrules them and adopts the PFRD for the reasons set forth below.
RYAN BIETSCH, MICHAEL PFORTMILLER, JUSTIN MANNER, & SELIM FREIHA, individually & on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SERGEANT’S PET CARE PRODUCTS, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant., No. 15 C 5432, 2018 WL 4484201 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 19, 2018);
Plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify a national class of all purchasers of the Pur Luv Treats based on their warranty claims, a multi-state class based on their consumer fraud claims, and, alternatively, state classes based on their consumer fraud claims. Plaintiffs move to certify these classes under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) seeking a mandatory injunction requiring Sergeant’s to recall and reformulate the Pur Luv Treats, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), seeking damages in the form of a full refund of the Pur Luv Treat’s purchase price. Plaintiffs also move to strike portions of Sergeant’s expert Dr. Jörg Steiner’s testimony. Sergeant’s moves to strike Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Kelly Swanson’s testimony in its entirety.
LONNIE DOUGLAS, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. PETER O’NEAL, ET AL., Defendant. Additional Party Names: Antionette Douglas, George Carroll, III, Henry Douglas, Lawrence Mathis, MacArthur Douglas, Sonny Perdue, Viola Douglas, No. 1:17-CV-00808, 2018 WL 4469505, at *1 (W.D. La. Aug. 23, 2018), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. LONNIE DOUGLAS, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. PETER O’NEAL, ET AL., Defendants, No. 1:17-CV-0808, 2018 WL 4426928 (W.D. La. Sept. 17, 2018)
Plaintiffs’ Complaint, while difficult to follow and convoluted, asserts a number of claims against the remaining Defendants which appear to be premised on the rightful ownership of 172 acres of farmland. Plaintiffs claim the property that is the subject of this litigation was illegally sold or foreclosed through the acts or omissions of Defendants. Plaintiffs allege the property was obtained by the United States pursuant to a judgment in rem, Civil Action No. 96-0064. Plaintiffs assert the action resulted in loss of property due to a lien that should not have attached to the property.