IN RE SYNGENTA MASS TORT ACTIONS This Document Relates to: Tweet et al. v. Syngenta AG et al., & Poletti et al., No. 3:15-CV-01221-NJR, 2019 WL 3887515 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2019) This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Special Master Daniel J. Stack on Allocation of Attorney’s Fees. For the following reasons, the Report and Recommendation is adopted, in part, and rejected, in part.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT BRACE, ROBERT BRACE FARMS, INC., AND ROBERT BRACE AND SONS, INC., Defendants., No. 1:17-CV-00006 (BR), 2019 WL 3778394 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2019)
The United States of America initiated this action against Defendants Robert Brace, Robert Brace Farms, Inc. and Robert Brace and Sons, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging that Defendants have repeatedly violated Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), and seeking injunctive relief as well as civil penalties pursuant to the Act. The following motions are currently before the Court: (1) the United States’ motion to strike Defendants’ response to the United States’ motion for summary judgment on liability; (2) the United States’ motion for summary judgment on liability; and (3) several motions in limine.
Having reviewed the motions, the oppositions thereto, the record of this case, as well as the relevant legal authorities, the Court will: (1) grant the United States’ motion to strike Defendants’ response to the summary judgment motion; (2) grant the summary judgment motion; and (3) strike as moot the remaining outstanding motions.
In re Solberg, No. 18-6031, 2019 WL 3806242 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. Aug. 14, 2019)
This is a case involving competing rights in the crop proceeds and crop insurance proceeds of Richard Allen Solberg, Debtor. Zaitz Trust, LLP (“Zaitz”) filed a complaint against Bremer Bank, N.A. (the “Bank”), Norcan Seeds, Inc. (“Norcan”), the Debtor individually and as a partner of Solberg Farms, Kasey Solberg individually and as a partner of Solberg Farms, and Solberg Farms, a Minnesota partnership. The Bank and Norcan counterclaimed. The Bank also filed a third party action against RRV, LLC (“RRV”) and the Trustee, and RRV counterclaimed.
The Bank subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment challenging the validity of the other parties’ liens and asserting the priority of its own lien in the Debtor’s 2017 crops. The Bankruptcy Court granted the Bank’s motion. Zaitz and Norcan (collectively, the “Appellants”) appealed. The court reversed and remanded for further findings.
Organic Trade Ass’n v. United States Dep’t, of Agric., No. CV 17-1875 (RMC), 2019 WL 3803085 (D.D.C. Aug. 13, 2019)This case involves an Administrative Procedure Act challenge to one agency final rule withdrawing another. Plaintiff Organic Trade Association has moved, inter alia, to supplement the administrative record for the current challenge to the withdrawing rule with comments from the separate record for the rule that was withdrawn. Motion was denied.
Llacua v. W. Range Ass’n, 930 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2019)
Five Peruvian shepherds (the “Shepherds”) who worked in the Western United States pursuant to H-2A agricultural visas brought antitrust claims, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated classes of shepherds, against several sheep ranchers (the “Rancher Defendants”), two associations (the “Association Defendants”), and Dennis Richins (referred to collectively as the “Defendants”). The Shepherds alleged the Defendants “conspired and agreed to fix wages offered and paid to shepherds at the minimum DOL wage floor.” The Shepherds also brought class action RICO claims against Richins and the Association Defendants. The RICO claims focus on allegedly false assurances made by the Association Defendants to the federal government that H-2A shepherds are being properly reimbursed for “reasonable costs incurred by the worker for transportation and daily subsistence from the place from which the worker has come to work for the employer,” as required by 20 C.F.R. § 655.122.
The district court dismissed the antitrust claims on the ground the allegations in the operative complaint, the second amended complaint (“SAC”), did not plausibly allege an agreement to fix wages. The district court dismissed the RICO claims because the SAC failed to allege the existence of enterprises distinct from the persons alleged to have engaged in those *1169 enterprises. Thereafter, the district court denied the Shepherds’ request to file a third amended complaint (“TAC”). It concluded the majority of the proposed amendments were futile. Alternatively, the district court concluded the proposed amendments were dilatory and allowing amendment would unduly prejudice the Defendants. The Shepherds appeal, asserting the SAC states valid Sherman Act and RICO claims and insisting the district court abused its discretion in denying their motion to file the TAC. We agree that the district court erred in dismissing the RICO claim naming Richins as a defendant. In all other regards, the district court is affirmed. Thus, exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands to the district court for further proceedings.
Dvorak v. Oak Grove Cattle, L.L.C., No. 18-1624, 2019 WL 3729469 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2019) Lee and Rita Dvorak (Dvoraks) appeal the district court decision granting summary judgment to Oak Grove Cattle, L.L.C. (Oak Grove), based on the statute of limitations. The Court concluded the district court improperly granted summary judgment to Oak Grove on the ground the Dvoraks’ action was barred by the statute of limitations. Oak Grove did not meet its burden to show the case involved a permanent nuisance, rather than a continuing nuisance. The Court reversed the decision of the district court and remanded for further proceedings.