According to the Burlington Free Press, on August 5th, Dairy Farmers of America agreed to pay a sum of $50 million to about 9,000 Northeastern dairy farmers. The farmers filed a lawsuit against Dairy Marketing Services, accusing the marketing cooperative of working with Dean Foods to drive down the price of milk and monopolize the raw milk market. Each farmer would receive a payment of about $4,000. Some Northeastern dairy farmers are opposed to the deal. A judge, who had rejected a previous settlement proposed in March, still needs to approve the settlement.
In 2011, Dean Foods, a Dallas-based dairy processor, agreed to a $30 million lawsuit settlement payment. The money was paid to farmers in numerous states, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.
The previous settlement was rejected by U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss on the grounds that some farmers opposed the deal. Based on the reasoning for the rejection of the previous deal, it is deemed likely by many that this settlement will be rejected as well.
The farmers opposing the deal argue that the $4,000 per farmer was insufficient financial compensation for the damages suffered. They also deemed the money not worth the possible retaliation they may face from both Dean Foods and Dairy Farmers of America. The farmers argued that the proposal’s injunctive relief left room to allow the two companies to continue trying to create a raw milk monopoly. For the farmers to agree to the deal, there would need to be a significant change in the way the defendants do business.
In the first lawsuit settlement proposal, the farmers’ attorneys requested $16.6 million plus expenses. The settlement payment amount remained $16.6 million plus expenses after negotiation. However, both sides agreed to address some of the concerns of the farmers by amending the settlement.
Kit Pierson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, stated that he believed the new settlement was in the best interest of the farmers. However, many farmers, including dairy farmer Jonathan Haar, continue to oppose the deal on the grounds that the primary beneficiaries were counsel.
When requested to comment, Dairy Farmers of America did not respond immediately. In a later statement, DFA denied any wrongdoing under the previous settlement’s terms. They argued that the cost to defend against the lawsuit had become too great, which is why they agreed to the second settlement.
Pattern of Misconduct
matter”. The department’s attorney claims that he lost his job for failure to act. The department that fired him unofficially claimed that they did so because of the case against former officer Skeeter Manos, who was arrested for stealing memorial funds set aside for families of officers slain in 2009.
spoken up for Manos during his investigation in his role as union president. Whether it was his sexual orientation, behavior on the job, or outspoken role as union president, he made some enemies high up in the department. When the information all came to light in the lawsuit, it seemed better for some to settle.
According to the lawsuit, the accuser, who agreed to be named, suffered abuse at the hands of Cody after a psychiatrist identified him as a pedophile. The lawsuit alleged that the church knew that he had already molested eight other children, all of which who were under the age of 18. The archbishop at the time sent Cody to receive treatment, but he was allowed to come back to the church, even though the parish knew he was still a danger to children. For Hubbard, the abuse began in 1967 and continued for the next five years.
the previously resolved cases have been settled out of court. Interestingly, Hubbard could have settled her case earlier, but refused to do so until the Archdiocese admitted to moving a sexual predator into the community.
Moncrief left the Police Department after the incident. No statement has been released to determine whether he was fired or he resigned from duty. He is now 40 years old. The woman was not charged with anything and there was an investigation after the incident. Moncrief was unable to be contacted after the conclusion to the lawsuit.
Since these allegations and lawsuits, many changes have been made on the force. There is now an official policy to report all incidents of misconduct by other officers. It is now also required that two officers are present when a woman is arrested and taken to jail. Police officers must now wear body cameras as well.
Brandes, who died in January, worked at the ARCO Cherry Point refinery and was exposed to the asbestos at the Whatcom County refinery.
children. He had no idea that the contamination and toxins on his clothing could lead to asbestos related diseases.
Pictures he included in his post were of the livestock of a local farmer, used without permission. When posting about a vegan lifestyle and providing a sort of indictment about cruelty to animals continued to happen, Allison was eventually fired.
Although not common, lawsuit settlement cases similar to this do occur from time-to-time regarding free speech rights and employers attempting to control that speech outside of the workplace. In this case, the school district actually had a policy that indicated staff had free speech rights, as long as the speech was constitutional and didn’t cause an undue interruption at school.
as perjured testimony, withholding evidence, and ignoring leads pointing to other suspects.
while Anthony was awarded a settlement, the city has never admitted to any wrongdoing and argues that detectives properly conducted the investigation.
deliver fake five-star reviews as a means of deceiving buyers into purchasing poorly rated products.
Lawsuits such as this are imperative to maintaining the reputability and trustworthiness of businesses, so consumers can continue to have confidence and assurance over the products they purchase. Amazon took a noble step in filing a lawsuit, which will hopefully serve as a warning to others hoping to profit off of the callous deception of consumers. Though, as James Tenser from VSN strategies stated, “Paid ads should be identified as such. Amazon’s legal action is welcome now, but Amazon has already profited greatly over the years from turning a blind eye to this odious practice.”