JUDICIAL:
Backus v. Conagra Brands, Inc., No. C 16-00454 WHA, 2019 WL 1046025 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019)
Plaintiff brought this putative class action in January 2016 against defendant’s use and mislabeling of artificial trans fats in its margarine products. For many years, Plaintiff purchased and consumed a variety of margarine spreads and sticks under the brand name Fleischmann’s, which was manufactured and sold by ConAgra Foods, predecessor to defendant Conagra Brands. Conagra’s products used partially hydrogenated oil, a food additive derived from low-cost oils that contained artificial trans fat, which had been linked to increased risk of certain medical conditions like cardiovascular heart disease, diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, and organ damage. In June 2015, The Food and Drug Administration issued a final determination that partially hydrogenated oils were no longer “generally recognized as safe”
In this putative class action for violation of Section 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code, plaintiffs move to consolidate and amend the complaints. For the following reasons, plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate is denied and the motion to amend the complaints is granted in part and denied in part.
CHURCH CROP INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GEMCAP LENDING I, LLC, Third-Party Interpleader Defendant-Appellant., No. 17-1356, 2019 WL 1057095 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2019) GemCap Lending I, LLC (GemCap) appeals the district court’s grant of declaratory judgment in favor of Church Crop Insurance Services, Inc. (Church Crop). The district court found Crop USA Insurance Agency, Inc. (Crop USA), as a debtor of GemCap, could not pledge as security funds representing commissions it owed to Church Crop. The court ordered the release of the disputed funds to Church Crop. Although the court does not fault Church Crop for feeling proprietary about the funds, they thought the relevant contracts and Article 9 jurisprudence compel a different result. We find Crop USA had rights in the disputed funds and could legally pledge the funds as security. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
SELSO PALMA ULLOA, ORLIN NAHUM SANCHEZ, MANUEL EDGARDO MEJIA, JOSE GUADALUPE, NATAN JOEL ORELLANA, JULIO CESAR GUTIERREZ, JORGE HUMBERTO VASQUEZ, JORGE ALBERTO DOMINGUEZ MADRID, FAREN OBED URRUTIN RAMIREZ, ERICK JOEL ULLOA AMAYA, MARVIN ALEXANDER BUEZO CABALLERO, BAYRON ALBERTO CHAVEZ MUNGUIA, CRISTIAN EDGARDO TINOCO BUESO, WALTER BRIZUELA, DILIO CRUZ VASQUEZ, OSMON HERALDO GOMEZ, ELDER DOMINGO MADRID, WILMAN NOEL MARTINEZ LARA, RENE ARDON VILLEDA, ALEX DANIEL ULLOA AMAYA, RENSO RENERIE CASTILLO BLANCO, DEBLIN OVIDIO LOPEZ HERNANDEZ, WILBER LISANDRO BENITEZ PORTILLO, JULIO CESAR SALMERON, OSCAR RENATO ANARIBA ULLOA, MARVIN ALEXANDER CASTRO ALVAREZ, HENRY BLADIMIR ACOSTA RUIZ, RUFINO QUINTERO AMAYA, JOSE MELVIN VASQUEZ DOMINGUEZ, EDVIN PINEDA TINOCO, JONATHAN FELIPE AMAYA, CELSO LOIRA RODRIGUEZ, RUBEN CASTRO CASTRO, EVELIO HERNANDEZ AGUILAR, OSCAR AMILCAR GUERRA, ALEJANDRO CRUZ PONCE, NERY JOEL CANO, MARCO TULIO SANTOS, NOEL ANTONIO DIAS, OSCAR DANILO LOPEZ VASQUEZ, GILBERTO MATIAS NOLASCO LOPEZ, MARVIN NOE ALVARADO, MANUEL DE JESUS HERNANDEZ AMAYA, MERLYN RAUL RODRIGUEZ AMAYA, EDUARDO ANTONIO CANO, ORLIN GERARDO CASTRO DIAZ, JAIME ENRIQUE DOMINGUEZ MADRIOL, SANTIAGO ARNALDO ORELLANA, DIONICIO MARCIA CHAVER, ALEX RENE MEMBRENO REYES, GILBERTO GARCIA ZELAYA, GILBERTO MATIAS NOLASCO LOPEZ, JOSE LUCIO ALVARADO DUBON, JULIO CEASAR RAMOS, OSMAN LEONEL GAMEZ RAMOS, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. FANCY FARMS, INC., Defendant – Appellee., No. 18-10536, 2019 WL 1077272 (11th Cir. Mar. 7, 2019)
This is an appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant/appellee, Fancy Farms, Inc. (“Fancy Farms”), on claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and breach of employment contract brought by plaintiffs/appellants, guest foreign workers. The plaintiffs/appellants also appeal the district court’s judgment entered after a bench trial. After having the benefit of oral argument, reviewing the record, and reading the parties’ briefs, the court affirms in part, vacates in part, and remands for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WANAMAKER NURSERY, INC.; TIMOTHY WANAMAKER, individually & d/b/a WANAMAKER NURSERY, INC. & d/b/a TENNESSEE BUSH FARM; ASHLEY WANAMAKER, individually & d/b/a WANAMAKER NURSERY, INC.; ANDREA WANAMAKER, individually & d/b/a WANAMAKER NURSERY, INC.; & WILLIAM WANAMAKER, Individually & d/b/a WANAMAKER NURSERY, INC. Plaintiffs, v. JOHN DEERE RISK PROTECTION, INC., d/b/a FMH RISK PROTECTION, INC. Defendants., No. 4:17-CV-77, 2019 WL 1065872 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 27, 2019)
With an estimated population of 10 quintillion, insects are all around us. Equally at home in cities, forests and fields, they pollinate our plants and compete with us for the food we eat. At times beautiful and benign—at other times annoying, loathsome and destructive—we share with them our homes, workplaces, recreational spaces, and conveyances—in short, our world. By and large, our relationship with our six-legged co-habitants is unwittingly (at least for most of us) symbiotic; however, there are times when humans and insects compete directly. And, at such times, we are reminded that the age-old curse—“plague of locusts”—is not just apocryphal.
The Plaintiffs herein—the Wanamakers—experienced such a “plague” first hand when hungry insects devoured the plants in their nursery in 2009. This disaster prompted them to file claims against their insurer, FMH Risk Protection, Inc. (“FMH”), under seven different insurance policies. FMH initially denied payment under all of seven policies. The parties then submitted the claims to arbitration, where the arbitrator, through a conditional award, required the Wanamakers to submit additional documentation to FMH. Following receipt of such documentation, the arbitrator directed FMH to re-open its claims process and reconsider the Wanamakers’ claims in light of the new documents. FMH determined that the Wanamakers were entitled to recover under one of the seven policies, so FMH paid that claim. The arbitrator then made his final award, finding that FMH paid all amounts properly owed under the policies.
Following the arbitrator’s final decision, the Wanamakers filed suit, seeking judicial review of the decision [Doc. 1]. In response, FMH filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the Court must uphold the arbitrator’s final award under the Federal ArbitrationAct.
REGULATORY:
Final rule: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA; This rule revises the reporting requirements under the Federal marketing order for pecans. The revised reporting requirements will enable the American Pecan Council (Council) to collect information from handlers on the average handler price paid and the average shelled pecan yield. The Council will use this information to provide important statistical reports to the industry and meet requirements under the marketing order. Info HERE
Proposed rule: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA; We are proposing to amend the regulations governing the National Veterinary Accreditation Program by clarifying the veterinary programs for which accredited veterinarians are authorized to perform duties under the Animal Health Protection Act. We are also proposing to add or revise certain definitions and terms used in the regulations. The changes we propose would update the program regulations. Info HERE
Final rule; correction: Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA; This document contains a correction to the final rule published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2019, “Hiring Flexibility Under Professional Standards.” Info HERE
Notice: Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA; In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a new collection. The primary purpose of this study is to provide FNS with information about how the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) is administered and monitored by State agencies and SFSP sponsors and sites, and identify common SFSP integrity challenges. Info HERE
Notice and request for comments: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA; In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to seek reinstatement of the 2019 Organic Survey. Response to this survey will be mandatory. Info HERE
Notice and request for comments: Rural Housing Service, USDA; In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Housing Service (RHS) invites comments on this information collection for Single Family Housing Direct Loans and Grants programs, for which the Agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will be requested. The collection involves the use of Form 410-8 “Application Reference Letter.” The form will be used to obtain information about an applicant’s credit history that might not appear on a credit report and to provide clarification on the promptness of applicant’s payments on debts which enables Rural Housing Service to make better creditworthiness decisions. Info HERE
Notice and request for comments: Rural Utilities Service, USDA; In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) invites comments on this information collection for which approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will be requested. Info HERE