FARM LABOR ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOSHUA STEIN, Defendant. Additional Party Names: Valentin Alvarado Hernandez, Victor Toledo Vences, No. 1:17CV1037, 2019 WL 2162722 (M.D.N.C. May 17, 2019):
This case comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a recommendation on the “Motion for Reconsideration by North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc.” (Docket Entry 64) (the “Reconsideration Motion”). For the reasons that follow, the Court should deny the Reconsideration Motion.
Asserting constitutional and statutory violations, the Farm Labor Organizing Committee (“FLOC”), Victor Toledo Vences, and Valentin Alvarado Hernandez (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) initiated this lawsuit against Roy Cooper, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of North Carolina, and Marion R. Warren, in his official capacity as Director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts. The following week, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. (See Docket Entry 7.) Shortly thereafter, the North Carolina Department of Justice (at times, the “NC DOJ”) filed notices of appearance on behalf of Governor Cooper (see Docket Entry 12) and Warren (see Docket Entry 14), after which Governor Cooper and Warren moved to dismiss the Complaint (see Docket Entries 24, 27) on eleventh-amendment immunity and standing grounds (see Docket Entries 25, 27, 28). That same day, the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, Inc. (the “Farm Bureau”) filed a motion to intervene as a defendant in this action (seeDocket Entry 21) pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Rules”). Rather than attach a proposed answer to its intervention motion, the Farm Bureau instead submitted a proposed motion to dismiss.
Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, which replaced Governor Cooper as a defendant with Joshua Stein, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of North Carolina. Plaintiffs also filed an amended preliminary injunction motion, seeking “to preliminar[ily] enjoin Section 20.5 of the North Carolina General Assembly Session Law 2017-108, SB 615 (‘the Farm Act’ or ‘the Act’).”
PROTECT OUR INDIAN RIVER, JOSEPH MEYER, CHERYL MEYER, RAY WHARTON, GERALDINE WHARTON, JOANNE HAYNES, KENNETH HAYNES, DONNA SKIBBE, & LEWIS PODOLSKE Petitioners, v. SUSSEX COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT & ALLEN HARIM FOODS, LLC, Respondents., No. S18A-08-003 RFS, 2019 WL 2166807 (Del. Super. Ct. May 17, 2019)
Presently before the Court is a certiorari appeal from a decision of the Board of Adjustment of Sussex County (“Board”, “BOA” or “Respondent”) brought by Protect Our Indian River, Joseph Meyer, Cheryl Meyer, Ray Wharton, Geraldine Wharton, Joanne Haynes, Kenneth Haynes, Donna Skibbe, and Lewis Podolske (“Petitioners” or “Protect Our Indian River”). Petitioners seek to reverse the Board’s decision that Allen Harim Foods, LLC’s (“Harim” or “Respondent”) application has met the requirements needed to establish a special use exception for a chicken processing, packaging and deboning plant. Harim supports the decision of the Board. The Court affirms the decision of the BOA.
Monsanto Co. v. Hensel Seed Sols. LLC, No. 4:18-CV-1812-SNLJ, 2019 WL 2173444 (E.D. Mo. May 20, 2019)
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Monsanto Company’s motion to partially dismiss defendant Hensel Seed Solution LLC’s First Amended Counterclaims and to strike from Hensel’s First Amended Answer its Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth Affirmative Defenses.
Plaintiff manufactures crop seeds which it sells to farmers through dealers. Defendant is or was a seed dealer for plaintiff. Plaintiff and defendant entered into Monsanto Brand Seed Dealer Agreement (“MBSD”) that sets forth the terms of the parties’ relationship. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit seeking damages for defendant’s alleged breach of the MBSD and of the parties’ credit agreement and for unjust enrichment.
Defendant filed an answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaims. The first counterclaim is for price discrimination under Section 2(a) the Robinson Patman Act, and the second count is for breach of contract, including the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff seeks dismissal of the second count. Plaintiff also seeks an order striking the defendant’s affirmative defenses of set-off and recoupment, illegality, impossibility, and frustration of purpose.
Ordered that plaintiff Monsanto’s motion to dismiss counterclaims and strike affirmative defenses (#27) is GRANTED, and that Hensel’s breach of contract counterclaim is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to plead fraud with particularity.
Ordered that Hensel is granted leave to file any amended counterclaim by June 10, 2019, and that Hensel’s affirmative defenses of set-off and recoupment, illegality, impossibility, and frustration of purpose are STRICKEN.
Ordered that Monsanto’s motion to stay discovery (#18) is DENIED as moot, and that Monsanto’s first motion to dismiss (#16) is DENIED as moot.
Double Green Produce, Inc. v. Forum Supermarket Inc., No. 18CV2660MKBSJB, 2019 WL 2162309 (E.D.N.Y. May 17, 2019)
Plaintiff Double Green Produce, Inc. commenced the above-captioned action on May 4, 2018, against Defendants Forum Supermarket Inc. (“Forum”) and Hong Wen Cai, asserting claims pursuant to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. § 499a et seq.(“PACA”), and claims for failure to pay for goods sold, breach of contract, unlawful dissipation of trust assets by a corporate official, and breach of a personal guaranty. (Compl., Docket Entry No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants accepted wholesale quantities of produce but have refused to pay for the goods. (Id. ¶¶ 7–8.) Plaintiff served Forum and Cai with a summons and Complaint on May 22, and 30, 2018, respectively. (Summons Returned for Forum, Docket Entry No. 5; Summons Returned for Cai, Docket Entry No. 7.) The Clerk of Court entered a certificate of default against Defendants on June 22, 2018. (Entry of Default, Docket Entry No. 10.)
On June 27, 2018, Plaintiff moved for a default judgment against Defendants solely pursuant to its PACA claim. (Pl. Mot. for Default J. (“Pl. Mot.”), Docket Entry No. 11; Pl. Mem. of Law in Supp. of Pl. Mot. (“Pl. Mem.”), Docket Entry No, 14.) By Order dated June 27, 2018, the Court referred Plaintiff’s motion to Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara for a report and recommendation. (Order dated June 27, 2018.) By report and recommendation dated January 29, 2019, finding that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, Judge Bulsara recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and dismiss the Complaint without prejudice (the “R&R”). (See generally R&R, Docket Entry No. 17.) Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R on February 5, 2019. (Pl. Obj., Docket Entry No. 18.)
By Order dated March 27, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment but granted Plaintiff thirty (30) days to submit additional information that would establish that Forum is a “dealer” within the meaning of PACA. (Order dated Mar. 27, 2019.) On April 25, 2019, Plaintiff submitted a declaration attaching evidence in further support of its motion for default judgment. (Supplemental Declaration of Gregory Brown The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment.
FRESHKO PRODUCE SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. ILA PRODUCTS, INC., et al., Defendants. Additional Party Names: HLN CA, Inc., Jamie Gibson, Kathy Gibson, No. 119CV00017DADBAM, 2019 WL 2160379 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019)
Currently pending before the Court are two motions to set aside default filed by Defendants Jamie Gibson and Kathy Gibson. (Doc. No. 13). Plaintiff Freshko Produce Services, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) has filed an opposition to the motions and has also separately filed a motion for default judgment against Defendants Jamie Gibson, Kathy Gibson, HLN CA, Inc., and ILA Products, Inc. (“Defendants”) for the sum certain of $181,674.72. (Doc. Nos. 15, 23.) The motions were referred to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 and are deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Having reviewed the parties’ filings, the Court recommends that Defendants’ request to set aside the Clerk’s entry of default be granted and Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment be denied without prejudice.