Judicial:
In re Spiech Farms, LLC, No. GK 17-05398-JTG, 2018 WL 5255296 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. Oct. 18, 2018); Produce Pay, Inc. (“Produce Pay”) asserts a claim under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, against Spiech Farms, LLC, the debtor-in-possession in this chapter 11 case (the “Debtor”). Produce Pay argues that its PACA claim arises from the following two separate transactions with the Debtor. First, the Debtor allegedly sold produce to Produce Pay via a software platform. Second, the Debtor, acting as Produce Pay’s consignee, sold the produce that Produce Pay purchased moments earlier, to the Debtor’s pre-existing customers. Produce Pay contends that, as an unpaid seller or supplier of perishable agriculturalcommodities, it is a PACA trust beneficiary entitled to have its claim satisfied ahead of all other non-PACA creditors, including Chemical Bank, the Debtor’s prepetition secured lender (“Chemical”). Alternatively, Produce Pay argues that when it purchased the Debtor’s “right, title and interest” in produce, it also purchased the Debtor’s receivables, including the Debtor’s status as a PACA trust beneficiary.
MASTRONARDI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, v.SUNSELECT PRODUCE (CALIFORNIA), INC., 2018 WL 5262599 (E.D.Cal.); This is a PACA case brought by Plaintiff Mastronardi International Limited (“Mastronardi”) against Defendant SunSelect Produce (California), Inc. (“SunSelect”) over SunSelect’s alleged failure to supply Mastronardi with tomatoes as required by a written agreement. Before the Court is SunSelect’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration. SunSelect argues that this case should be dismissed or stayed because the claims from Mastronardi are subject to arbitration pursuant to a written arbitration agreement.
ANDERSON, v.DEERE & COMPANY; JOHN DEERE COMPANY Defendants2018 WL 5262778 (Mont.);The above-named Appellants (Deere) appeal from an order entered by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, denying their motion to compel arbitration of claims brought by Appellee in Dealership agreement.
BLACK SOIL DAIRY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. LAND O’LAKES, INC., Defendant., No. 17-CV-4065-LRR, 2018 WL 5259464 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 22, 2018); On August 15, 2017, Black Soil Dairy, LLC (“Black Soil”) filed a “Petition and Jury Demand” (“Petition”) in the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Iowa. In the Petition, Black Soil asserts three claims against Land O’Lakes: (1) Count I alleges that Land O’Lakes was negligent in a number of respects related to a milk replacement delivered to Black Soil; (2) Count II alleges that Land O’Lakes breached an implied warranty of fitness regarding the milk replacement; and (3) Count III alleges that Land O’Lakes breached its voluntarily assumed duties. On September 19, 2017, Land O’Lakes filed an Answer. On October 13, 2017, Land O’Lakes filed a Notice of Removal, bringing the case before the court.
State ex rel. Washington State Pub. Disclosure Comm’n v. Food Democracy Action!, 427 P.3d 699 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018);
Food Democracy Action! (Food Democracy) appeals from a judgment imposing civil penalties against it for violations of state campaign finance disclosure laws. Food Democracy solicited and received contributions to support Initiative 522 (I-522). In turn, it contributed the money in its own name to the Yes on I-522 political committee. After the general election and vote on I-522, and after the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) began an investigation, Food Democracy registered as a political committee and filed reports disclosing the contributions it received from over seven thousand contributors.
Food Democracy argues that the trial court erred in concluding it concealed the source of its campaign contributions. It contends that only intentional conduct amounts to concealment. Food Democracy also argues, for the first time on appeal, that the trial court erred by imposing statutorily authorized civil penalties for the state campaign finance disclosure law violations.
CARLINE FISHERIES, INC., ET AL. v. VECTOR DISEASE CONTROL INTERNATIONAL, LLC, ET AL., No. 6:16-1506, 2018 WL 5261225 (W.D. La. Oct. 22, 2018);The Iberia Parish Mosquito Abatement District (“IPMAD”), tasked with conducting mosquito abatement services for the parish, contacted Vector Disease Control International, LLC (“Vector”) sometime prior to November 3, 2015, about conducting an aerial application of a mosquito abatement chemical over parts of Iberia Parish. The two entered into a contract which called upon Vector to make an aerial application of the chemical Dibrom on the evenings of November 3 and 4, 2015, to specified areas of Iberia Parish. IPMAD provided Vector with GPS coordinates of these target areas, and Vector confirmed the coordinates by sending maps of the target areas back to IPMAD. Shortly before the aerial application on November 3, 2015, IPMAD made an oral change to the contract. Instead of Dibrom, to which the mosquitos had built a tolerance, Vector would spray the pesticide Permanone.The Permanone label contained a warning that the pesticide was “extremely toxic to aquatic organisms, including fish and invertebrates”; however, IPMAD made no mention regarding the existence of crawfish ponds in or around the target areas and Vector did not inquire.
Regulatory:
Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); This document announces the Agency’s receipt of several initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities. Info HERE
