BARK, CASCADIA WILDLANDS, OREGON WILD, & WILDEARTH GUARDIANS, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE, Defendant, & HIGH CASCADE INC., Intervenor-Defendant., No. 3:18-CV-01645-MO, 2019 WL 2518123 (D. Or. June 18, 2019)
Plaintiffs Bark, Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild, and WildEarth Guardians (collectively “Bark”) oppose the United States Forest Service’s (USFS) authorization of forest thinning on the southeastern slope of the Mount Hood National Forest (MHNF). Bark claims that the USFS violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Travel Management Rule (TMR) in authorizing the Crystal Clear Restoration (CCR) Project. High Cascade Inc. was awarded the Ahoy Stewardship Contract to implement a portion of the CCR Project and has intervened as a defendant.
Bark challenges the CCR Project under three main theories. First, that the USFS’s Environmental Assessment (EA) for the CCR Project was arbitrary and capricious because it violated the procedural requirements of NEPA. Second, Bark claims that the CCR Project violates the NFMA because it is not consistent with the MHNF Plan or the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). Third, Bark challenges the CCR Project on the theory that the USFS failed to comply with the Travel Management Rule (TMR) by electing not to develop a “minimum road system” as part of the Project.
All parties moved for summary judgment on Bark’s claims. Oral argument was held on April 19, 2019, and the parties’ motions were taken under advisement. After supplemental briefing, I granted the USFS’s and High Cascade’s motions for summary judgment and denied Bark’s Motion for Summary Judgment . Orde. Bark then appealed and filed a Motion for an Injunction Pending Appeal. Bark’s motion for an injunction was denied.
HAWYUAN YU, Plaintiff, v. DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. Additional Party Names: Mott’s, LLP, No. 18-CV-06664-BLF, 2019 WL 2515919 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2019)
On behalf of a putative class, Plaintiff Hawyuan Yu alleges that Defendants Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (“Dr. Pepper”) and Mott’s, LLP (collectively, “Defendants”) mislead consumers by selling apple juice and applesauce products with the representation “Natural” and/or “All Natural Ingredients” that nonetheless contain trace amounts of a pesticide. Arising from this allegation, Plaintiff asserts five state law causes of action and that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
Now before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and to stay the action “[i]f outright dismissal is not warranted.” The Court heard oral argument on Defendants’ motion on June 13, 2019 (“the Hearing”). Defendants’ motion is GRANTED IN PART WITH LEAVE TO AMEND and DENIED IN PART, and Defendants’ request to stay the action is GRANTED.
IN RE: TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION MDL 2353 This Document Relates To: ALL CASES, No. CV 2:11-07382, 2019 WL 2521958 (D.N.J. June 18, 2019)
This is a case about orange juice. Defendant Tropicana is a manufacturer of products derived from citrus, including a category of products of pasteurized, not-from-concentrate orange juice marketed as Tropicana Pure Premium (“TPP”). Plaintiff Angelena Lewis (“Lewis” or “Plaintiff”) is a purchaser of at least one TPP product. Plaintiff alleges that Tropicana deceptively markets TPP as “100% pure and natural orange juice,” “100% pure orange juice,” “100% orange juice,” “pasteurized orange juice,” “pasteurized,” “pure,” “natural,” “fresh,” and “grove to glass,” when, in fact, it is none of those things. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant removes solids and oils from the extracted juice, treats the mixture, and then adds oils, colors, or flavoring in violation of FDA standards and consumer protection laws. Based on these allegations, Lewis, now proceeding as the sole named plaintiff, asserts claims under New York and California law on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. Renewed Motion for Class Certification was denied.
Sylte v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., No. 46062, 2019 WL 2479799 (Idaho June 14, 2019)
This appeal concerns the distribution of water to water right 95-0734 in the Twin Lakes-Rathdrum Creek Drainage Basin. Sylte Ranch, LLC, is the current claimant on water right 95-0734, which dates from the year 1875 and provides natural flow stockwater from Rathdrum Creek. On September 20, 2016, Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) issued a letter of instructions to the local watermaster in response to a complaint that he was releasing storage water from Twin Lakes contrary to the 1989 Final Decree that established all existing rights to Twin Lakes’ surface waters, tributaries, and outlets. These instructions led Sylte to file a Petition for Declaratory Ruling, arguing that IDWR should set aside and reverse the instructions because they improperly limited water right 95-0734 to Twin Lakes’ natural tributary inflow. Twin Lakes Improvement Association, et al., and Twin Lakes Flood Control District intervened in the case. Following cross motions for summary judgment, IDWR issued a Final Order, in which it upheld the instructions and granted intervenors’ motion for summary judgment. Sylte then sought judicial review and the district court affirmed IDWR’s Final Order. Sylte timely appealed to this Court. We affirm the district court’s determination to uphold IDWR’s Final Order because the instructions complied with the plain language of the 1989 Final Decree.
Court affirms the district court’s decision to uphold IDWR’s Final Order and decline to make an award of attorney fees. Costs to Intervenors and IDWR on appeal.
IDAHO CONSERVATION LEAGUE, Plaintiff, v. U.S. FOREST SERVICE, Defendant., No. 1:18-CV-044-BLW, 2019 WL 2505031 (D. Idaho June 17, 2019)
Plaintiff Idaho Conservation League (ICL) claims that the Forest Service is violating the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by failing to consult with other agencies to protect listed fish species that are being harmed by irrigation ditches that divert water – and these fish – from the Salmon River in Idaho’s Sawtooth National Recreation Area. The Forest Service responds that agency inaction does not trigger the ESA’s consultation requirement under existing Ninth Circuit law.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period: Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.; The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS, or the Agency) proposed to make changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) regulations pertaining to the eligibility of certain SNAP retail food stores in a document published on April 5, 2019. FNS inadvertently excluded from publication two supporting documents to the proposed rule, the Regulatory Impact Analysis and the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. These have now been published as part of the docket for the proposed rule. The agency is extending the comment period to provide the public an opportunity to review and provide comment on these documents as part of the rulemaking record. This document reopens the comment period until June 20, 2019. Info HERE
Proposed rule: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA; We are proposing to amend the Swine Health Protection Act regulations by removing the State status lists from the regulations in order to maintain these lists on the Agency’s website. These changes would allow us to use a notice-based, streamlined approach to update the lists while continuing to protect swine health in the United States. Info HERE