A dairy trade group has filed a lawsuit against Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) alleging that the agency both exceeded its authority and failed to follow required public rulemaking processes when it set new water pollution control regulations affecting dairy and animal feeding operations. Dairy Bus. Ass’n v. Wis. Dep’t of Nat. Res., No. 2017CV001014 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Brown Cty., filed July 31, 2017). The complaint involves recent administrative rules and guidance issued by DNR related to feed storage leachate runoff and calf hutches. DNR is the state agency tasked with enforcement of the federal Clean Water Act and is responsible for issuing state Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits (WPDES) to entities that discharge pollutants into state waters. The complaint asserts that the goal of the permit system is “parity” with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and state regulations “shall comply with and not exceed the requirements of the…
Category Archives State Courts
A former turkey farmer has filed a lawsuit against Marin County, California, alleging that a land-use ordinance intended to encourage multigenerational housing on family farms places an unconstitutional burden on landowners by requiring them to farm “in perpetuity.” Benedetti v. County of Marin (Cal. Super. Ct., Marin County, filed July 14, 2017). In May 2017, Marin County certified a new land-use plan that requires dwelling units on agricultural lands to be owned by a “farmer or operator actively and directly engaged in agricultural use of the property.” The plaintiff alleges that the plan prevents him from building a second house on his property for his son, who is not involved in his farming business. The plaintiff argues that the policies violate his due process, are an unconstitutional taking of his right to develop his property, and may deprive him of his liberty by forcing him off the land he has…
Two consumers have filed lawsuits alleging they contracted norovirus after eating at one of Chipotle Mexican Grill’s locations. Hogan v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, No. 109599 (Va. Cir. Ct., Loudoun Cty., filed July 26, 2017); Moore v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, No. 109660 (Va. Cir. Ct., Loudoun Cty., filed July 26, 2017). Both complaints allege negligence and breach of implied warranties, and each plaintiff seeks $74,000 in damages and attorney’s fees. The Loudoun County Health Department has identified more than 135 people who became ill after eating at Chipotle’s Sterling, Virginia, restaurant between July 13-16, 2017, and confirmed that two people tested positive for the same strain of norovirus. On July 19, federal prosecutors served Chipotle with a new subpoena seeking details about the outbreak. In 2015, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California began a criminal investigation into a series of norovirus, E. coli and Salmonella outbreaks traced…
A sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) tax will go into effect in Chicago and surrounding suburbs following a Cook County court's dissolution of a temporary restraining order and dismissal of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association's lawsuit alleging the tax violated the state’s constitution. Illinois Retail Merchs. Ass’n v. Cook Cty. Dep’t of Revenue, No. 2017L050596 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., order entered June 28, 2017). The 1-cent-per-ounce tax was scheduled to take effect July 1, 2017, but its implementation was postponed by the restraining order, which was upheld by the state appeals court. More details about the tax appear in Issues 622 and 640 of this Update. See Chicago Tribune, July 28, 2017. Issue 642
A Texas man alleges the tortilla chips provided for his food demonstrations were rancid and adulterated with a salt shaker and a dirty napkin, threatening his business relationships and causing him emotional distress. Henry’s Dream Distrib. v. El Matador Foods, No. 2017-46884 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris Cty., filed July 14, 2017). The plaintiff asserts that in two separate incidents related to tortilla chips he purchased from El Matador Foods, a salt shaker rolled out of a bag at a sales demonstration and a dirty napkin was found in a bag that held rancid chips. According to the complaint, the plaintiff suffered a stroke after the second event. Claiming breach of contract, negligence, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation and violations of Texas consumer protection law, the plaintiff seeks damages and attorney’s fees. Issue 641
A California man has filed a legal malpractice claim against lawyers who allegedly failed to represent him adequately in his suit against fruit processor Townsend Farms, in which he claimed he contracted hepatitis A after eating the company’s Organic Antioxidant Blend. Durrell v. Taylor, Sullivan & Mondorf, No. BC667419 (Cal. Sup. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., filed July 6, 2017). In 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it was working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as state and local officials to investigate a multistate outbreak of hepatitis A and confirmed that 162 people had become ill after eating the product. In 2014, Durrell sued Townsend Farms in Yolo County, California, and his case was later consolidated with others in Los Angeles County. The complaint alleges that his attorney failed to respond to discovery requests or motions to compel, resulting in the levy of…
After years of litigation over whether Florida should reimburse residents whose healthy citrus trees were cut down in an effort to eradicate citrus canker, the Florida Supreme Court has upheld Gov. Rick Scott's veto of $37.4 million appropriated by the state legislature that would have paid judgments to homeowners in two counties. Bogorff v. Scott, No. 17-1155 (Fla., order entered July 13, 2017). From 2000 to 2006, Florida attempted to eradicate citrus canker in the state, eventually chopping down more than 500,000 orange, grapefruit and key lime trees throughout the state located within 1,900 feet of an infected tree, even if the trees showed no signs of the disease. In May 2017, lawmakers budgeted funds to pay previous judgments awarded to homeowners in Lee and Broward counties, two of the five counties affected. Gov. Scott used a line-item veto to stop the budgeted payments; the Lee county plaintiffs then sought…
The Illinois Appellate Court has upheld a temporary restraining order that stopped a proposed one-cent per-ounce tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) from going into effect in Cook County on July 1, 2017. Illinois Retail Merchs. Ass’n v. Cook Cty. Dep’t of Revenue, No. 2017L050596 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., filed June 27, 2017). The Illinois Retail Merchants Association filed for the order along with preliminary and permanent injunctions against imposition of the tax, arguing it violates the uniformity clause of the state constitution and is unconstitutionally vague. The plaintiffs allege that the tax applies to distributors and retailers who sell bottled sweetened beverages and syrups or powders used to produce SSBs but not to SSBs prepared by hand, such as those made by baristas, even if they contain more sugar than a comparable bottled or “pre-made” product. Issue 640
The attorney general of New Jersey has announced an “unprecedented” $2-million fine in a settlement with a craft beer and spirit wholesaler accused of trade practice violations. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Hunterdon Brewing Co. LLC, No. L0002 (N.J. Dep't of Law Public Safety, consent order filed May 31, 2017). New Jersey alleged that Hunterdon Brewing sold tap systems at below-market prices then overcharged those customers by including “miscellaneous draft charges” on invoices. Further, the company allegedly ignored state credit regulations and entered into discriminatory, “unequal financing” terms of sales with its customers. Hunterdon has agreed to pay the fine in four $500,000 installments over the next 12 months; $250,000 of the final payment will be waived if compliance audits show no further violations. “Fair market prices exist for a reason,” said Attorney General Christopher Porrino in a June 12, 2017, press release. “Consumers suffer when these laws and…
A Pennsylvania appeals court has upheld Philadelphia’s tax on the distribution of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), rejecting arguments that it is a duplicate sales tax or is preempted by state tax laws. Williams v. City of Philadelphia, Nos. 2077, 2078 (Pa. Commonwealth Ct., order entered June 14, 2017). The court held that the subject matter of the tax—the non-retail distribution of SSBs—is “distinct” from the sales tax collected when the beverages are sold to a retail purchaser, and thus the distribution tax is not duplicative of an existing tax. In addition, the court said, the tax is not preempted under state law because Pennsylvania cities have the right to tax transactions that are not already subject to state tax or license fees. Nor is it preempted by the federal Food Stamp Act or related tax laws because the tax is levied on the distributors of SSBs and “no recipient of program…
