JUDICIAL:
IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION, This Document Relates to All Cases Except: Louis Dreyfus Co. Grains Merch. LLC v. Syngenta AG, et al., No. 16-2788 Trans Coastal Supply Co., No. 14-MD-2591-JWL, 2018 WL 6436074 (D. Kan. Dec. 7, 2018): In this multi-district litigation (MDL), the Court provisionally certified a settlement class and preliminarily approved a settlement agreement resolving claims against Syngenta. Plaintiffs now seek final settlement approval pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). On November 15, 2018, the Court conducted a final settlement hearing (of which the settlement class received due notice), at which the Court also heard argument concerning the total amount of attorney fees that should be awarded from the settlement fund. For the reasons set forth below and on the record of the hearing, the Court grants the motion for final approval, and it will issue a separate order setting forth the granted relief as requested by plaintiffs. The Court also awards total attorney fees in the amount of one third of the settlement fund, or $503,333,333.33, and it therefore grants the petition for attorney fees filed by MDL co-lead counsel and settlement class counsel to that extent.The Court approves the withdrawal of two objections, and it overrules all other objections to the settlement or to the total fee award. Finally, the Court grants as unopposed the special master’s pending motion for mediation expenses.
S. KATZMAN PRODUCE, INC., et al., Plaintiff, v. JAT BEVERAGE INC., et al., Defendants. Additional Party Names: Albatross Produce, Ariel L. Tejada, Daniel E. Tejada, Deck Capital, JAT Beverage Inc., JAT Produce, Joanne Rodriguez, Katzman Berry Corp., Starlight Food Serv., No. 17 CV 7930-LTS, 2018 WL 6437058 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2018): Plaintiffs S. Katzman Produce, Inc., and Katzman Berry Corp. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for a default judgment against Defendant Joanne Rodriguez d/b/a Albatross Produce (“Rodriguez”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) and S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 55.2(b), on claims arising from Rodriguez’s receipt, retention, and disbursement of assets held in trust pursuant to the trust provisions of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”), 7 U.S.C. § 499e(c). Rodriguez has not appeared or responded to the claims asserted against her in this action. The Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1367(a). The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ submissions and Plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment was granted.
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONTESTED CASE HEARING ON THE WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION ORIGINALLY FILED BY KUKUI (MOLOKAI), INC., NOW REFILED AS A NEW GROUND USE BY MOLOKAI PUBLIC UTILITIES, LLC., No. SCOT-17-0000184, 2018 WL 6445105 (Haw. Dec. 10, 2018): When the court first considered this case over a decade ago, it vacated the issuance of two water use permits and remanded the matter to the State of Hawai‘i Commission on Water Resource Management (Commission) for further proceedings. On remand, parties indicating that they were the applicant’s successors in interest submitted a letter to the Commission stating that they lacked the financial resources to continue to pursue the case. When these same parties filed a new water use application years later, the Commission initially treated it as a continuation of the remanded case before concluding that the letter had constituted a waiver of the applicants’ right to continue the original proceedings. The applicants now challenge this conclusion, arguing that the letter was at best ambiguous as to their intention to relinquish the rights at issue. The court holds that the Commission did not err in finding that the letter was a clear and unambiguous waiver of the right to proceed on the contested case, and the Supreme Court affirms.
Share: