A comprehensive summary of today’s judicial, legislative, and regulatory developments in agriculture and food. Email important additions HERE.

THE ELIZABETH LORENE STAMBAUGH IRREVOCABLE TRUST dated JULY 19, 2011, Plaintiff, v. THE NATURE CONSERVANCY, Defendant., No. 18-CV-316-GKF-JFJ, 2018 WL 4404703 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 17, 2018), Denied Motion for Joinder of a contingent income beneficiary and a residual beneficiary of a trust.  The Trust is seeking to modify or terminate a conservation easement, that was originally brought in state court.

GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL ROZWADOWSKI & DIANA WOLFE, individually & on behalf of themselves & all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRYAMERICA, INC., & CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC. Defendants, No. 1:09-CV-0430 AWI-EPG, 2018 WL 4385809 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2018) Order granting plaintiff’s motion for preliminary approval of class action.  Plaintiffs, as purported class representatives, have alleged various claims against Dairy America and California Dairies concerning the misreporting of milk prices. The class has not yet been certified. The parties have notified the Court of their intent to settle all claims.   Plaintiffs now move for conditional certification of the proposed class and for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. Defendants have not opposed.  Plaintiff’s Motion was granted.

Sierra Club v. Wheeler, No. CV 16-2461 (TJK), 2018 WL 4387564 (D.D.C. Sept. 14, 2018).  The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or the “agency”) to develop guidelines to regulate solid waste incinerators. It also provides a private right of action to sue EPA to enforce the law’s statutory duties that are nondiscretionary. 42 U.S.C. § 7604(a)(2). Plaintiff Sierra Club brings this lawsuit to compel EPA to comply with three duties related to these guidelines that it asserts are nondiscretionary. Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court concluded that two of the duties at issue are not nondiscretionary. Therefore, they may not be enforced through the private right of action invoked by Sierra Club, and claims related to them must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. With respect to the third duty, which the parties agree is nondiscretionary, the Court will order a schedule that establishes deadlines for EPA’s compliance that fall between those proposed by the parties. Thus, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Sierra Club’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and grant in part and deny in part Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court also denied Sierra Club’s Motion for Leave to File a Surreply.