IN RE MUSHROOM DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Giorgi Mushroom Co. & Giorgio Foods, Inc., No. CV 06-0620, 2018 WL 6603868 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 17, 2018) Class Plaintiffs and Defendants Giorgi Mushroom Co. and Giorgio Foods, Inc. (collectively, “Giorgi”) have reached a settlement in this complex antitrust litigation. The Class has moved for final approval of the settlement with Giorgi and reimbursement of out-of-pocket litigation expenses. The motion for final approval is granted. The Court left the issue of out-of-pocket costs for later.
S FARMS & SINGLETON FARMS, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED GRAIN CORPORATION OF OREGON, an Oregon Domestic Bus. Corp., Defendant., No. CV 18-51-BLG- TJC, 2018 WL 6618066 (D. Mont. Dec. 18, 2018) 

Plaintiffs S Farms and Singleton Farms (“Singleton”) bring this action against Defendant United Grain Corporation of Oregon (“United”). In their complaint, Singleton sets forth nine counts against United relating to the parties’ agreements for the delivery and sale of wheat.
Presently before the Court is United’s Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration. The motion is fully briefed and ripe for the Court’s review. The Court held a hearing on the motion on November 14, 2018. Having considered the parties’ submissions, and the parties’ oral arguments, the Court ordered that United’s Motion to Stay and Compel Arbitration was denied.
JOYCE MCKIVER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MURPHY-BROWN LLC d/b/a SMITHFIELD HOG PRODUCTION DIVISION, Defendant., No. 7:14-CV-180-BR, 2018 WL 6606061 (E.D.N.C. Dec. 17, 2018) 

This matter is before the court on defendant’s motions to alter or amend judgment, for judgment as a matter of law, and for a new trial; plaintiffs’ motion to alter or amend judgment; and defendant’s motion to strike plaintiffs’ reply.
On 31 August 2018, the court allowed defendant’s unopposed motion to direct entry of final judgment on the jury verdict awarding ten of the twenty plaintiffs in this case compensatory and punitive damages. The same day the Clerk entered judgment.  On 28 September 2018, the parties filed their post-judgment motions. Briefing on those motions concluded on 2 November 2018 with plaintiffs’ filing of a reply in support of their post-judgment motion, to which defendants responded with a motion to strike. Briefing on that motion has recently concluded, thus making these related motions ripe.
Defendant argues that based on post-trial amendments to North Carolina’s Right to Farm Act (“RFA”), the Act bars plaintiffs’ claims or, alternatively, prohibits plaintiffs’ recovery of punitive damages. Specifically, defendant contends that the subject amendments clarify existing law and therefore apply to pending cases. Plaintiffs counter that the amendments work a change in law, applying only prospectively. The court agreed with plaintiffs.
Am. Wild Horse Campaign v. Zinke, No. 318CV00059LRHCBC, 2018 WL 6616667 (D. Nev. Dec. 18, 2018) Plaintiffs (collectively American Wild Horse Campaign or “AWHC”) have filed a motion for summary judgment on all their claims against defendants (collectively Bureau of Land Management or “BLM”). BLM responded with its own motion for summary judgment on July 31, 2018. On October 29, 2018, the Court held oral arguments on both AWHC’s motion for summary judgment and a similar motion in a companion case. Following oral arguments, AWHC filed an unopposed motion for the Court to take notice of supplemental authority. For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny AWHC’s motion for summary judgment and grant BLM’s motion for summary judgment.  Summary judgment granted for the Defendants.
Notice of a modified system of records: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR); In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposes to modify a system of records, USDA/OCRE-1, which will be renamed USDA/OASCR-1, Civil Rights Enterprise System (CRES). The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR) maintains CRES, which contains program discrimination complaints, alleging unlawful discrimination arising within programs or activities conducted or assisted by USDA. Records relating to Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints alleging unlawful discrimination against USDA employees or applications for employment are maintained in CRES also; however, those records are covered by EEOC/GOVT-1, EEO in the Federal Government Complaint and Appeal Records. The revised notice also conveys updates to the system location, categories of records, routine uses (one of which permits records to be provided to the National Archives and Records Administration), storage, safeguards, retention and disposal, system manager and address, notification procedures, records access, and contesting procedures. Info HERE
Notice and request for comments: Rural Utilities Service, USDA; In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 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
Notice and request for comments: Rural Utilities Service, USDA. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development administers rural utilities programs through the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). RUS invites comments on the following information collection for which the Agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Info HERE