JUDICIAL:

LEE & RITA DVORAK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OAK GROVE CATTLE, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee., No. 18-1624, 2019 WL 3729469 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2019)
The Dvoraks own property in rural Mitchell County. Beginning in 2006, Oak Grove has operated a cattle lot immediately adjacent to the Dvoraks’ property. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) investigated Oak Grove in 2009 due to manure run-off from the cattle lot and required that Oak Grove take remedial action. Oak Grove was investigated again by DNR in 2013 based on manure run-off.
On December 19, 2016, the Dvoraks filed an action against Oak Grove, claiming “from approximately 2009 to the present there have been multiple occasions when manure from [Oak Grove’s] cattle lot has entered upon, and traversed over, [the Dvoraks’] property.” The Dvoraks raised claims of negligence, trespass, and nuisance. They sought damages for loss of value to their property, loss of use and enjoyment of their property, and emotional and mental pain and suffering.
Oak Grove claimed the Dvoraks’ action was barred by the five-year statute of limitations found in Iowa Code section 614.1(4) (2016).  Oak Grove also raised a counterclaim for defamation, alleging the Dvoraks made false statements about the cattle lot and published them to third parties.
Oak Grove filed a motion seeking summary judgment on the ground the Dvoraks’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The Dvoraks resisted the motion, stating each successive incursion of manure onto their property constituted a separate action so the statute of limitations would not bar an action for Oak Grove’s conduct within the limitations period. They also claimed the discovery rule should apply.
The district court stated, “If injuries from a nuisance are claimed to be of permanent character and go to the valuation of real estate, the Plaintiffs can have only one recovery. If injuries from a nuisance are intermittent, a property owner can bring successive actions to recover damages for each intermittent injury.” The court found the Dvoraks were “making a claim for permanent injury rather than temporary injury.” The court stated the problems and hazards associated with a confined animal facility were ongoing and permanent, rather than temporary. The court determined the statute of limitations began to run in 2006 and the Dvoraks’ action, filed in 2016, was barred by the five-year statute of limitations.  The court reversed the decision of the district court and remanded for further proceedings.
Dumont v. Reily Foods Co., No. 18-2055, 2019 WL 3729035 (1st Cir. Aug. 8, 2019)
Defendant New England Coffee Company, operating as a subsidiary of Reily Foods Company,1 sells a “Hazelnut Crème” coffee. Kathy Dumont contends that she purchased the coffee because she thought that a coffee styled “Hazelnut Crème” contained some hazelnut. After learning that the “Hazelnut Crème” coffee contained no hazelnut at all, Dumont brought this putative class action challenging the coffee’s labeling as a violation of Massachusetts’ consumer protection laws. The district court dismissed the case for failure to meet the heightened pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).The Appellant court reversed.
IN RE PORK ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Document Relates To: All Actions., No. CV 18-1776 (JRT/LIB), 2019 WL 3752497 (D. Minn. Aug. 8, 2019)
Plaintiffs (separated into three putative classes) allege that Defendants, some of the nation’s leading pork producers and integrators, conspired to limit the supply of pork in order to fix prices in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Defendants now move to dismiss the claims against them. Because Plaintiffs have not adequately pleaded parallel conduct sufficient to support an inference of conspiracy, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motions and dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaints without prejudice. The Court will, however, grant Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaints.
SUNRISE FOODS INTERNATIONAL INC., Plaintiff, v. RYAN HINTON INC., Defendant., No. 1:17-CV-00457-CWD, 2019 WL 3755499 (D. Idaho Aug. 8, 2019)
On November 3, 2017, Sunrise Foods International, Inc. (Sunrise) filed a complaint against Ryan Hinton Inc. (Hinton).  The complaint alleges Hinton breached its contract with Sunrise by not accepting and paying for a specified amount of certified organic corn. Hinton filed an answer on November 28, 2017. On April 13, 2019, Sunrise filed its motion for summary judgment.
Shortly thereafter, Hinton’s attorney of record requested to withdraw. The Court granted the motion to withdraw, notified Hinton of its obligation to secure counsel in accordance with D. Idaho L. Rule 83.4(d), and informed Hinton that its failure to appear through newly-appointed counsel would be grounds for entry of default against it without further notice. Hinton did not respond. The Clerk entered a notice of default against Hinton on May 21, 2019.  The Clerk entered default on May 21, 2019, per Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), and notice of the same was mailed to Hinton’s last known mailing address. The Court now considers Sunrise’s motion for summary judgment, which it granted.