Three lead class attorneys who, for five years or longer, have represented African-American farmers claiming discrimination in government farm loan programs, have filed their fee petition seeking 7.4 percent of the preliminarily approved $1.25 billion settlement, or $90.8 million. In re: Black Farmers Discrimination Litig., Misc. No. 08-0511 (D.D.C., filed August 8, 2011). The petition recites the efforts required to obtain redress for the farmers, who missed the deadline for filing claims under the first such settlement in 1999, including working for congressional approval of laws in 2008 and 2010 establishing a fund to compensate them. According to the petition, the fee award request, to be divided among all class counsel, is “expressly within the range authorized by the Settlement Agreement.”
Category Archives D.C. Circuit
If a D.C. federal court agrees to the unopposed litigation schedule filed in late July by the Styrene Information and Research Center, a decision about whether the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) properly added styrene to its list of possible carcinogens could be reached early in 2012. Styrene Info. & Research Ctr., Inc. v. Sebelius, No. __ (D.D.C., filed June 10, 2011). The industry trade group contends that the HHS National Toxicology Program (NTP) process that concluded with a determination to add the substance, which is used in plastic and foam food service packaging, to the 12th Annual Report on Carcinogens (RoC) was flawed, arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with the law. The center seeks the removal of styrene from the RoC. In its complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, the center alleges that NTP’s scientific advisory panel members ignored studies showing…
A federal court in the District of Columbia has issued an order granting preliminary approval of a settlement agreement involving a class of African-American farmers who “submitted late-filing requests under Section 5(g) of the Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree on or after October 13, 1999, and on or before June 18, 2008,” but had not yet obtained a determination on the merits of their discrimination complaints. In re: Black Farmers Discrimination Litig., No. 08-0511 (D.D.C., filed May 13, 2011). The order certifies the class and sets a “cost cap” of $35 million with payment of up to $3.5 million for class counsel fees and costs. Class members are enjoined from bringing any other claims arising out of section 14012 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. These lawsuits alleged that the U.S. Department of Agriculture systematically discriminated against African-American farmers on the basis of race. The court has scheduled…
A federal court has reportedly approved a $760 million government settlement with Native American farmers and ranchers who claimed that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) discriminated against them by denying them equal access to credit through the agency’s Farm Loan Program. Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-03119 (D.D.C., settlement approved April 28, 2011). A final dispute over attorney’s fees was resolve in class counsel’s favor; they will receive 8 percent of the settlement, or $60.8 million. The Department of Justice apparently urged the court to halve that amount. According to a news source, the settlement funds do not require legislative action to be awarded; farmers must file their claims by December 2011. President Barack Obama (D) said, “Today’s approval of the settlement will help strengthen our nation to nation relationship with Indian Country and reinforce the idea that all citizens have a right to be treated fairly by their government.” Under…
A federal court in the District of Columbia has reportedly scheduled an April 26, 2011, hearing to determine whether attorneys representing Native American farmers and ranchers in the settlement of claims alleging discrimination against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should receive $60.8 million in fees. Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-03119 (D.D.C., preliminary settlement approval filed November 1, 2010). The sum represents 8 percent of the $760 million settlement; Department of Justice attorneys oppose the request and will file supporting papers in the next week. See The Blog of LegalTimes, April 5, 2011.
Nearly 700 heirs and estates of Colombian citizens allegedly killed by “a right-wing terrorist organization” that purportedly received financial and other support from Chiquita Brands International and its subsidiaries and affiliates have sued the companies seeking monetary, injunctive and declaratory relief. Does 1 through 677 v. Chiquita Brands Int’l, Inc., No. 11-00582 (D.D.C., filed March 17, 2011). The lawsuit involves claims and litigants not included in similar litigation filed in 2010. The plaintiffs, who claim to be the “family members of trade unionists, banana workers, political organizers, social activists, and others targeted and killed by terrorists,” allege that the defendants “funded, armed, and otherwise supported” a paramilitary organization “to produce bananas in an environment free from labor opposition and social disturbances.” According to the plaintiffs, the companies’ actions violated Colombian, U.S. and international law “prohibiting crimes against humanity, extrajudicial killing, torture, war crimes, and other abuses.”
Five Hispanic farmers have filed a putative class action in a D.C. district court against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), to seek “redress from Defendants’ unconstitutional treatment in the proposed settlement of discrimination claims by these Hispanic Plaintiffs . . . as compared to the manner in which Defendants have settled identical discrimination claims by similarly situated African-American and Native American claimants, . . . all of whom were undeniably discriminated against in like manner by [USDA] in the administration of its farm credit and non-credit farm benefit programs.” Cantu v. United States, No. 11-00541 (D.D.C., filed March 15, 2011). According to the complaint, the government has paid African-American farmers about $1 billion in settlement benefits, and legislation signed into law in December 2010 provides an additional $1.25 billion to settle African-American farmers’ claims. Native American farmers were purportedly offered $680 million in compensation and $80 million in debt…
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued two decisions allowing the sale of ethanol blends above 10 percent, referred to as E15, for use in model year 2001 and newer vehicles. Both decisions have been challenged in court, and the agency has filed a response to a motion filed by food industry interests asking the court to accelerate the briefing schedule. GMA v. EPA, No. 10-1380 (D.D.C., opposition filed February 17, 2011). EPA asked the court considering the actions to instead adopt a consolidated briefing schedule that allows both decisions to be addressed, in the interest of preserving judicial resources. In a footnote, EPA suggests that the food industry parties may lack standing to challenge the agency’s E15 waiver. Apparently, EPA regulations give “only fuel and fuel additive manufacturers” the ability to register E15, and they are already represented in a challenge to EPA’s action. EPA also notes, “given that several steps…
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), an organization devoted to preventive medicine, a vegan diet and animal rights, has sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), claiming the agencies used deliberately obscure language in their 2010 Dietary Guidelines regarding the foods consumers should avoid. While the guidelines specifically call for increased consumption of vegetables, fruits and whole grains, PCRM contends that the agencies “hide the food Americans should eat less of. The Guidelines use biochemical terms, such as ‘saturated fat’ and ‘cholesterol’ instead of specific food terms ‘meat’ and ‘cheese.’” According to PCRM, the guidelines are written this way due to “the USDA’s close ties to the meat and dairy industries, including fast-food companies such as McDonald’s.” The organization also apparently blames USDA’s dual mission of giving nutritional advice to Americans and promoting American agricultural products for the use of language…
According to a news source, a small claims court in California has exonerated two seafood restaurant supervisors for alleged negligence in the case of the exploding escargot. More details about the case appear in Issue 373 of this Update. In a two-page ruling, the court apparently determined, “There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever on what caused the escargot to spontaneously splatter grease upon being touched by the plaintiffs. There was no evidence that Seafood Peddler did not exercise reasonable care in the preparation or service of the escargot.” The court also opined that diners should have a “reasonable expectation” of injury “due to hot grease in orders of escargot which are prepared and served with ‘hot garlic butter.’” Pleased with the ruling, the restaurant’s owner reportedly noted that orders for escargot have surged since news about the lawsuit became public. See Marin Independent Journal, December 15, 2010. The Third Circuit Court…
