S. 1641: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income interest received on certain loans secured by agricultural real property Info HERE
S. 1637: A bill to amend the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 to reaffirm the authority of the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics, and for other purposes. Info HERE
S. 1636: A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the scope of new chemical exclusivity Info HERE
MillerCoors, LLC v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, No. 19-CV-218-WMC, 2019 WL 2250644 (W.D. Wis. May 24, 2019)
During Super Bowl LIII, defendant Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, launched an advertising campaign highlighting plaintiff MillerCoors, LLC’s use of corn syrup in brewing Miller Lite and Coors Light, as compared to Anheuser-Busch’s use of rice in its flagship light beer, Bud Light. This lawsuit followed, with MillerCoors asserting a claim of false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B).
Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. In keeping with the court’s comments during oral argument on that motion on May 16, 2019, and for the reasons more fully explained below, the court will grant plaintiff a preliminary injunction, though more narrow in scope than that sought by plaintiff, enjoining defendant’s use of the following statements: (1) Bud Light contains “100% less corn syrup”; (2) Bud Light in direct reference to “no corn syrup” without any reference to “brewed with,” “made with” or “uses”; (3) Miller Lite and/or Coors Light and “corn syrup” without including any reference to “brewed with,” “made with” or “uses”; and (4) describing “corn syrup” as an ingredient “in” the finished product.
VIVIAN LOOMIS FAMILY, LLC, v. BELL 2019 WL 2241854 (Wash.App. Div. 3)
Loomis is the owner of the subject agricultural property situated in Franklin County, Washington. Largent Ranch, Inc., was a long-term tenant of that property under an oral farm lease. Jeffrey Bell is president of Largent Ranch, Inc.
In 2016 and 2017, Loomis provided multiple notices to Largent Ranch of its intent to terminate the oral farm lease. In October 2017, Loomis began leasing the subject property to Todd Van Hollenbeck, a neighboring farmer. Neither Bell nor Largent Ranch have prevented the new tenant from occupying or farming the subject property. Largent Ranch nevertheless continued to store equipment in buildings on the property.
In January 2018, Loomis brought an action for unlawful detainer under chapter 59.12 RCW. The complaint alleges that Bell and Largent Ranch are holdover tenants and have failed to vacate the property. Bell and Largent Ranch eventually answered the complaint. They asserted that the unlawful detainer was unnecessary given that they were no longer in possession, except as to “a portion of the farmdesignated as CRP.” Clerk’s Paper (CP) at 75. They also raised a counterclaim in which they asserted that Loomis failed to provide proper notice of termination and requested damages. In addition, they requested temporary relief. Specifically, they averred that they had “substantial trade fixtures and personal property located on the farm … [that] do not interfere with the farming by the new occupier ….” CP at 77. They requested “reasonable time to remove [these items], particularly considering the fact that [Largent Ranch] had occupied the entire property for 31 years, and no proper notice has been given applicable to said property.” CP at 77.
Loomis first argues that “RCW 59.12.035
applies to the entirety of a lease for agricultural lands
, including ancillary agricultural
buildings.” Br. of Appellant at 9. Bell and Largent Ranch
respond that the present action “does not have anything to do with agriculturalland
.” Br. of Resp’ts at 6. The court concluded that the trial court’s finding that the buildings were a subordinate part of the CRP contracts is not supported by substantial evidence. We, therefore, reverse the trial court and instruct it to issue a writ of restitution restoring exclusive possession of the shop and buildings on the property to Loomis.
NORTHSIDE ELEVATOR, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. JEFFREY ALAN OSSMANN, DEFENDANT, BREMER BANK, N.A., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT., No. 2018AP1596, 2019 WL 2291631 (Wis. Ct. App. May 30, 2019) Northside Elevator, Inc. contends that the circuit court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment as to its claim that Northside’s security interest in certain collateral belonging to Jeffrey Ossmann has priority over Bremer Bank’s security interest in the same collateral. Northside argues that Bremer Bank’s filed financing statement for the collateral is “seriously misleading,” and thus not effective to secure its interest, because the statement did not state the name that was on Ossmann’s current, unexpired operator’s license and a search of the full name on Ossmann’s current, unexpired operator’s license does not reveal Bremer Bank’s financingstatement. For the reasons discussed below, based on an implied concession by Northside and our plain language interpretation of statutory and administrative code language, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in denying Northside’s motion for summary judgment and later dismissing Northside’s priority of security interest claim against Bremer Bank.
Oklahoma ex rel. Hunter v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 15-CV-0381-CVE-FHM, 2019 WL 2288446 (N.D. Okla. May 29, 2019)
On July 8, 2015, the State of Oklahoma filed a case challenging the validity of a new rule adopted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Cops of Engineers). State of Oklahoma ex rel. E. Scott Pruitt v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al., 15-CV-381-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla.). The rule is known as the “Clean Water Rule” and it would expand federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to bodies of water that were previously not regulated by the federal government. Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States,” 80 Fed. Reg. 37054 (June 29, 2015). A separate case challenging the 2015 Rule was filed by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and other plaintiffs. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al, 15-CV-386-CVE-FHM (N.D. Okla.). The plaintiffs in both cases asked the Court to declare the 2015 Rule invalid and to permanently enjoin the defendants from enforcing the 2015 Rule. The plaintiffs also filed motions for preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the defendants from enforcing the 2015 Rule while the cases are pending. Case No. 15-CV-381-CVE-FHM, Dkt. # 17; Case No. 15-CV-386-CVE-FHM, Dkt. # 27. The plaintiffs in Case No. 15-CV-386-CVE-FHM also filed motions to consolidate both pending cases challenging the 2015 Rule.
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunctionthe Motion to Intervene as Defendants (Case No. 15-CV-381-CVE-FHM, Dkt. # 64) and the Motion to Intervene as Defendants (Case No. 15-CV-386-CVE-FHM, Dkt. # 74) are granted, and Waterkeeper Alliance and L.E.A.D. Agency are permitted to intervene in these consolidated cases under Rule 24(a). are denied.
The Defendants’ Motion and Memorandum in Support Thereof to Stay Proceedings Pending a Ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, Defendants’ Motion and Memorandum in Support Thereof to Stay Proceedings Pending a Ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, Waterkeeper Alliance Et Al’s Motion and Memorandum in Support of Leave to File Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request for Preliminary Injunction, Waterkeeper Alliance Et Al’s Motion and Memorandum in Support of Leave to File Brief in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Request for Preliminary Injunction, and the Renewed Motion and Memorandum to Allow Filing of Brief or Proposed Brief in Opposition to Motions for Injunctive Relief and Memorandum are moot.