JUDICIAL:
GLENN-COLUSA IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS JO- ELLEN DARCY, in her official capacity; LIEUTENANT GENERAL TODD SEMONITE, in his official capacity; & COLONEL DAVID RAY, in his official capacity, Defendants., No. 2:17-CV-120 WBS CKD, 2019 WL 3231748 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2019)
Plaintiff Glenn–Colusa Irrigation District brought this action against defendants the United States Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”), Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo–Ellen Darcy, Lieutenant General Todd Semonite, and Colonel David Ray, alleging that the USACE breached a construction contract by failing to construct an irrigation facility according to the contract’s specifications. Before the court is defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, which the court granted.
Tonnes v. U.S. Golden Eagle Farms, L.P., No. C18-0468-JCC, 2019 WL 3238575 (W.D. Wash. July 18, 2019)
Plaintiffs Daniel and Shavonne Tonnes allege that their neighboring landowner, Defendant U.S. Golden Eagle Farms, L.P., has filled, dredged, and dug waterways on its property, which has damaged Plaintiffs’ property and the surrounding environment. Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action against Defendant: (1) violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a); (2) violation of the Shorelines Management Act, Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.230; (3) nuisance per se based on violations of state and federal environmental laws; (4) common law nuisance; and (5) intentional trespass; and (6) negligence. (Id. at 16–19.)
Plaintiffs filed this motion to compel the following discovery: (1) all documents related to Defendant’s communications with regulatory agencies related to activities, authorizations, violations, or conditions on Defendant’s property; (2) photographs of Defendant’s property that is at issue in this lawsuit; and (3) all documentation related to Defendant’s restoration plan and “stream functions assessment.” Defendant responded with a three-page declaration by its defense counsel, who admitted that some of the documents Plaintiffs identified had not been previously produced, but indicated that Defendant had fully supplemented its discovery responses. In their reply brief, Plaintiffs suggest that Defendant has still not provided all responsive documents. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part.
PAISANO CAPITAL SA DE CV, d/b/a PRODUCTOS PAISANO, Plaintiff, v. 23 TEXAS PRODUCE, INC., a Texas corporation; JOEL SALAZAR, an individual; & MARICELA SALAZAR, an individual, Defendants., No. 3:19-CV-0852-B, 2019 WL 3239152 (N.D. Tex. July 18, 2019)
This case arises from a series of contracts (the Agreements) between Plaintiff and Defendants for the purchase and sale of produce. Plaintiff, Paisano Capital SA de CV, doing business as Productos Paisano, entered into the Agreements with Defendants—a Texas corporation that buys produce (“Texas Produce”) and two individual corporate officers—to ship and sell certain quantities of limes. Plaintiff shipped the agreed-upon quantities, which Texas Produce accepted without objections. Plaintiff then forwarded invoices to Texas Produce that reflected the quantity shipped and amounts owed by Texas Produce, which Texas Produce failed to pay. Texas Produce never denied receiving the invoices and nor objected to the terms and conditions contained therein.
Plaintiff filed this case on April 5, 2019, alleging that Texas Produce’s failure to pay the invoices despite accepting delivery of the limes constituted a breach of contract and a violation of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930 (“PACA”), 7 U.S.C. § 499b(4). The complaint further alleged that the actions of the two individual corporate officers constituted a breach of fiduciary duties to creditors.. On April 16, 2019, process was served on all Defendants. Docs. 9–11, Executed Summons. Defendants failed to answer or otherwise defend this lawsuit within the time allowed. Consequently, on May 21, 2019, the Clerk of the Court entered a default (Doc. 13) against Defendants. Plaintiff filed its present motion on June 14, 2019. In its motion, Plaintiff acknowledged that the two corporate officers have filed individual Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Petitions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, and as a result, the action is stayed as to the two corporate officers only. In support of its motion, Plaintiff filed Exhibits that included: the Declarations of Luis A. Camacho Guzman, General Counsel for Plaintiff (Doc. 14-1), and Steven M. De Falco, Attorney for Plaintiff ; copies of invoices sent directly to Texas Produce; and documentation showing expenses incurred by Plaintiff for attorney’s fees and court costs. Texas Produce has again failed to respond. Plaintiff’s motion is now ripe for review. The Court entered a default judgment.
Share: