JUDICIAL:
Singh v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp., No. 1:17-CV-01373-SAB, 2018 WL 6831130 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2018); This is an action for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., of final agency action relating to the federal crop insurance program. Plaintiff seeks review of the good farming practices determination pertaining to Plaintiff’s 2015 almond crop. Currently before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court heard oral arguments on December 12, 2018. Counsel Tracy Agrall appeared for Plaintiff Kewal Singh (“Singh” or “Plaintiff”), and counsel Benjamin E. Hall appeared for Defendant Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (“FCIC” or “Defendant”). The Court ruled that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted
Vanalstine v. Land O’Lakes Purina Feeds, LLC, No. 340150, 2018 WL 6815205 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2018); The court found an implied warranty, once disclaimed, cannot be revived by the inadequacy of an express warranty’s remedy. This rule of law was fatal to plaintiffs’ claims of breach of implied warranty under Michigan’s version of the uniform commercial code, and the court affirms summary disposition against plaintiffs. On the matter of taxable costs, the court vacates in part the trial court’s order taxing costs and remand for correction.
Plaintiffs operate a dairy farm in Eaton County. Defendant is a Minnesota corporation that manufactures and distributes animal feed and related products. Diversified Farms, LLC (Diversified) is a distributor of those products in Michigan. In July 2008, Diversified executed a Credit Application and Agreement (the Credit Agreement) with defendant that included a disclaimer of warranties and a remedy-limiting provision. Plaintiffs were not parties to the Credit Agreement.
Share: