IN RE: 100% GRATED PARMESAN CHEESE MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION This Document Relates to All Cases, No. 16 C 5802, 2018 WL 5717799 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2018):
Defendants in this multidistrict litigation are purveyors of grated parmesan cheese products with labels stating “100% Grated Parmesan Cheese” or some variation thereof. After the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned these suits to the undersigned judge, Plaintiffs filed five consolidated class action complaints, Docs. which alleged that they were misled by the labels because the products contain non-cheese ingredients such as cellulose. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaints under Civil Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court denied the Rule 12(b)(1) motions but granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motions without prejudice to repleading.
Plaintiffs then filed five amended consolidated class action complaints. Like the initial complaints, the amended complaints allege that Plaintiffs were misled by the “100% Grated Parmesan Cheese” labels because the products contained cellulose and other non-cheese ingredients. In addition, the amended complaints except for the one against Publix allege that the products’ ingredient lists are misleading because they say that the cellulose was added to prevent caking, when in fact it also acted as filler.
Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaints under Civil Rule 12(b)(6), Docs. 237, 238, 243, 246, 249, incorporating by reference many of the arguments they made in litigating the motions to dismiss the initial complaints. The motions were granted in part and denied in part.
ROBERTS ENTERPRISES INVESTMENTS, INC. d/b/a REI CATTLE COMPANY & AZ CATTLE FEEDING, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. COW CREEK FEEDERS, LLC, Defendant., No. 17-CV-1007-EFM, 2018 WL 5634002 (D. Kan. Oct. 31, 2018);
This lawsuit arises out of a dispute regarding cattle financed and fed by Defendant Cow Creek Feeders, LLC (“CCF”) at its commercial feed yards. Plaintiffs Roberts Enterprises Investments, Inc., d/b/a REI Cattle Company (“REI”) and AZ Cattle Feeding, LLC (“AZ”), sued CCF alleging that it did not act in good faith or in a commercially reasonable manner in performing its obligations under the parties’ agreements. CCF counterclaimed alleging that REI and AZ failed to pay amounts owed under the parties’ promissory notes. On October 16, 2018, this Court presided over a bench trial.
REI and AZ terminated their relationships with their former legal counsel and declined to procure new counsel in this action despite admonitions from this Court that, as entities, they could not proceed pro se and would need to obtain counsel to proceed in this litigation. REI and AZ have not responded to Court deadlines, briefs, or other filings in this case, and they did not appear for the bench trial, despite having received notice thereof. Accordingly, the Court found REI and AZ in default on their claims and received evidence from CCF regarding its counterclaim against REI and AZ. The Court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, and for the reasons discussed below, enters judgment (1) for CCF on REI’s and AZ’s claims, (2) for CCF on its counterclaim against REI, and (3) for AZ on CCF’s counterclaim against AZ.
RONNY DERRICK & ANGIE DERRICK, Plaintiffs, v. STANDARD NUTRITION COMPANY, JOHN DOES 1-5, & XYZ CORPORATE OR BUSINESS ENTITIES 1-5, Defendants, & STANDARD NUTRITION COMPANY, Counterclaimant,, No. 17-CV-1245 RB/SMV, 2018 WL 5635113 (D.N.M. Oct. 31, 2018):
Plaintiffs breed rodeo and ranch horses in New Mexico. Defendant Standard Nutrition delivered feed for the horses on December 8, 2016. I Shortly thereafter, some of Plaintiffs’ horses fell ill. By December 10, 2016, two horses had died. Plaintiffs retained counsel a few days later. Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant nearly a year later, on November 2, 2017. Plaintiffs allege that the feed was contaminated with monensin, an antibiotic, and that the monensin poisoned Plaintiffs’ horses.
The Answer was filed on December 27, 2017. Defendant denied that its feed caused the horses’ injuries. Defendant denied causation again in the Joint Status Report filed on March 9, 2018.
H.R. 7110: Specialty Crop Mechanization Prize Challenge of 2018: This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process. It was introduced into Congress on October 30, 2018. It will typically be considered by committee next before it is possibly sent on to the House or Senate as a whole. Info HERE
Proposed rule: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA: This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the California Date Administrative Committee (Committee) to increase the assessment rate for the 2018-19 and subsequent crop years for California dates handled under Marketing Order 987. The assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated. Info HERE