<There are no Federal Register postings at this time, because of the partial federal government shutdown>

JUDICIAL:

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, et al., Defendants., No. 3:17-CV-553-LRH-WGC, 2019 WL 236727 (D. Nev. Jan. 15, 2019) 

Plaintiffs, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club, have filed a motion for summary judgment on all their claims against defendants (collectively the “Bureau of Land Management” or “BLM”). BLM responded by filing a cross motion for summary judgment. The Court denies plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and grants BLM’s motion for summary judgment.
This dispute centers around the leasing of approximately 198,000 acres of land in BLM’s Battle Mountain District, which covers large portions of Northern Nevada. One hundred six parcels (195,600 acres of land) were offered for lease in June 2017, and 3 parcels (3,680 acres of land) were offered for lease in September 2017. The parcels encompass a vast geographic area, covering portions of Diamond Range and Valley, Sulphur Spring Range, Garden Valley, Fish Creek Range and Valley, Big Smoky Valley, and Railroad Valley. Plaintiffs state that while the available land is generally a “semiarid and arid desert environment,” there are “many” wetlands and other critical water features present, including “34 springs and seeps, 3.9 miles of perennial streams, 127.9 miles of ephemeral and intermittent streams, 286 acres of swamps and marsh, 348 acres of freshwater forested and shrub wetlands, 9,118 acres of lakes, and 13,044 acres of playa.” . The wetlands “support a wide array of aquatic wildlife, including seven amphibian and 19 fish species.”  The non-wetland portions of the parcels support “approximately 73 types of mammals, including mule deer and pronghorn.” . Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity is a non-profit corporation that “Works through science, law, and policy to secure a future for all species, great or small, hovering on the brink of extinction.”  Plaintiff Sierra Club is also a non-profit corporation with more than 825,000 members “dedicated to exploring, enjoying, and protecting the wild places of the earth.”
Lopez v. Ham Farms, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-329-D, 2019 WL 237386 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 15, 2019) 

On May 31, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint, which is 106 pages long, alleges several claims against Defendants. On June 14, 2018, several defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, or in the alternative, for a more definite statement. Defendants Ham Farms, Harm Produce, and Hugo Martinez filed memoranda in support. On July 5, 2018, plaintiffs responded in opposition. On July 19, 2018, Ham Farms and Ham Produce replied. The court denied the motion to dismiss.
Ham Farms and Ham Produce are a farming business that operates in and around Greene County, North Carolina. Plaintiffs are farm workers from Mexico who worked seasonally for that business during the fall months of 2015, 2016, and 2017. Specifically, plaintiffs worked in a sweet potato house that Ham Farms and Ham Produce own and operate. The work included planting, harvesting, packing, and operating equipment. The remaining defendants are various farm labor contractors who provide migrant farm workers, including plaintiffs, to Ham Farms and Ham Produce for seasonal work.
PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DADE CITY’S WILD THINGS, INC., STEARNS ZOOLOGICAL RESCUE & REHAB CENTER, INC., KATHRYN P. STEARNS & RANDALL E. STEARNS, Defendants., No. 8:16-CV-2899-T-36AAS, 2019 WL 245343 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2019)  

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. (“PETA”), an animal rights group, sued Dade City’s Wild Things, Inc., Stearns Zoological Rescue & Rehab Center, Inc., Kathryn P. Stearns, and Randall E. Stearns (“Defendants”) for alleged violations of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. (the “ESA”) in connection with Defendants’ operation of a family-run zoo in Dade City, Florida that houses tigers and tiger cubs. Following protracted litigation, including Defendants’ noncompliance with the Magistrate Judge’s discovery orders and related ensuing events, PETA filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint to add new factual allegations and to incorporate the legal standard under the ESA as refined by the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion in PETA v. Miami Seaquarium, 879 F.3d 1142 (11th Cir. 2018), The Court granted PETA’s motion, and PETA filed its Second Amended Complaint.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss PETA’s Second Amended Complaint and PETA filed a response in opposition. Upon this Court’s referral, the Magistrate Judge entered the R&R recommending that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.  Defendants filed an Objection, and PETA responded.
Defendants’ Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation was overruled
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted, confirmed and approved in all respects and is made a part of this Order for all purposes, including appellate review.
3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is denied.