CAPERGY US, LLC, Plaintiff, v. SAG REALTY, LLC & SCOTT GARDNER, Defendants., No. 1:18-CV-00214-JDL, 2019 WL 267700 (D. Me. Jan. 18, 2019) In 2016, Capergy US, LLC (“Capergy”), SAG Realty, LLC (“SAG”), and a third party formed EMEP, LLC (“EMEP”), a Maine limited liability company, for the purpose of purchasing the Great Northern Paper Company Mill in East Millinocket and restarting the mill’s biomass power plant. In this action, Capergy asserts that SAG and its sole member, Scott Gardner (referred to collectively as “SAG”), breached various commitments they made to Capergy, including their promise to contribute to the start-up costs Capergy incurred to launch EMEP. This matter is before the Court on SAG’s Motion to Dismiss, which seeks the dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court denied the motion.
IN RE: RENEE MARIE THORPE, Debtor, No. BR 13-15267 ELF, 2019 WL 262197 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2019)
Bankruptcy courts are not courts of general jurisdiction able to resolve every dispute that may affect a bankruptcy debtor during the pendency of a bankruptcy case. A fundamental principle of federal jurisprudence is that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Bankruptcy court jurisdiction constitutes a strictly circumscribed subset of that limited federal court jurisdiction. Further, even when bankruptcy jurisdiction attaches, it tends to “wane” after the confirmation of a bankruptcy plan.
In this case, years after the confirmation of her chapter 12 plan, the Debtor initiated a contested matter styled “Debtor’s Objection to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Escrow: Taxes and Insurance Statement Dated April 21, 2018” (“the Objection”). The Objection requests that this court resolve a post-confirmation mortgage servicing dispute that arose between the Debtor and JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. (“JPMorgan”), a mortgage holder on the Debtor’s residence.
Undoubtedly, the dispute is a real one and its outcome is important to both parties. However, the Debtor did not provide for JPMorgan’s claim in her confirmed chapter 12 plan and the present dispute will have no discernible impact on her almost fully administered bankruptcy case.
The court dismissed the Objection for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
In re Akers, 594 B.R. 362 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 2019) This matter comes before the Court on confirmation of the Fourth Amended Chapter 12 Plan (the “Fourth Amended Plan”) filed by the Debtor, Dale E. Akers (the “Debtor”), and the objections thereto filed by Farm Credit of the Virginias, A.C.A. (“FarmCredit”), Skyline National Bank (“Skyline”), and the Chapter 12 Trustee (the “Trustee”). The Court held a hearing on these matters on October 17, 2018, and has reviewed supplemental memoranda filed by the Debtor, the Trustee, and Farm Credit.
OKLAHOMA GENETICS, INC. Plaintiff, v. DUSTIN KELLY also known as DUSTIN SHERWOOD, MK FARMS, & JOHN DOES 1-25., Defendants., No. 17-1275-JTM, 2019 WL 266228 (D. Kan. Jan. 18, 2019) Plaintiff Oklahoma Genetics, Inc. (OGI) alleges that defendants Dustin Kelly and MK Farms violated the Plant Variety Protection Act(PVPA), 7 U.S.C. § 2561, by knowingly selling the “Gallagher” wheat variety in violation of OGI’s exclusive license with the owner of the variety. Kelly and MK tried to resist service of process, but later appeared in the action and were represented by counsel. Citing professional and ethical considerations, defense counsel subsequently withdrew from representation. OGI has moved for both summary judgment and default judgment on its claims. The plaintiff’s Corrected Motion for Summary and Default Judgment was granted. Plaintiff’s earlier Motion seeking the same relief was denied as moot.
S.C. Coastal Conservation League; et al., Plaintiffs, v. Wilbur Ross, in his official capacity as the Sec’y of Commerce; et al., Defendants. Additional Party Names: Chris Oliver, Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., No. 2:18-CV-03326-RMG, 2019 WL 259116 (D.S.C. Jan. 18, 2019)
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for a Stay by Defendants Wilbur Ross, National Marine Fisheries Service and Chris Oliver (collectively “Federal Defendants”). The Federal Defendants seek a stay of the deadline for their response to the State of South Carolina’s motion to intervene. The Court grants the Federal Defendants’ motion to stay and issues an injunction pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).
On December 11, 2018, two cases were filed challenging the decision of the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) to issue incidental harassment authorizations to five companies to conduct seismic airgun surveys for oil and gas in the coastal waters of the Mid- and South Atlantic Ocean. As alleged in the Complaint, as soon as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (“BOEM”) issues permits to the five companies, they will be free to begin seismic airgun surveys. The Plaintiffs, nine environmental organizations, seek declaratory relief that the Defendants violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act (“MMPA”), the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Plaintiffs further request that the Court vacate three agency actions authorizing the surveys and enjoin Defendants from authorizing takings of marine mammals incidental to the airgun surveys. On December 28, 2018, the Court granted a motion to consolidate this case with a related case, City of Beaufort et al. v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2:18-cv-3327-RMG, brought by South Carolina municipalities.
Pursuant to the All Writs Act, the Court hereby enjoined the Federal Defendants, BOEM, and any other federal agency or entity from taking action to promulgate permits, otherwise approve, or take any other official action regarding the pending permit applications for oil and gas surveys in the Atlantic based on the five incidental harassment applications issued by the NMFS to Spectrum Geo Inc., TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company, Inc., Ion GeoVentures (and subsidiary GX Technology Corporation), WesternGeco LLC and CGG. This injunction shall remain in effect until funds have been appropriated for the Department of Justice and all Federal Defendants, the Court has received the Federal Defendants’ responses to the pending motions to intervene (Dkt. Nos. 34, 59), and the Court has ruled on those motions. The Federal Defendants were directed to file a response to the pending motions to intervene within thirteen (13) days of the restoration of funding to the Department of Justice and the Federal Defendants, and other parties may file a reply if they wish within five (5) days thereafter. The Court will thereafter promptly rule on the pending motions to intervene.
This injunction applied not only to the Federal Defendants, but also the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Clerk is directed to serve notice of this opinion and injunction to the BOEM no later than January 18, 2019.
TOWNSHIP OF FRASER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HARVEY HANEY & RUTH ANN HANEY, Defendants-Appellants., No. 337842, 2019 WL 254523 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2019) Plaintiff filed this suit seeking injunctive relief to abate a public nuisance. Plaintiff claimed that defendants’ piggery violated the zoning ordinance applicable to their property (the land was zoned as “commercial” and not “agricultural”). Defendants filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (claim barred by statute of limitations). The trial court denied defendants’ motion, holding that this was an action in rem and that the statute of limitations therefore did not apply. Defendants appeal by leave granted. Court reverses the decision of the trial court and remand the case in order to allow defendants to amend their responsive pleading to include the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.
H.R. 689: To amend the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally. Info HERE
H.R. 691: To amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to authorize insect and disease treatment programs on certain Federal land, and for other purposes. Info HERE
H.R. 644: To approve the settlement of the water rights claims of the Navajo Nation in Utah, and for other purposes. Info HERE