DOCSLIB.ORG

Parallel Litigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Parallel Litigation Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 1-1999 Parallel Litigation James P. George Texas A&M University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation James P. George, Parallel Litigation, 51 Baylor L. Rev. 769 (1999). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/427 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PARALLEL LITIGATION' James P. George- TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PARALLEL LAWSUITS--AN OVERVIEW ............................................... 773 A. ParallelLitigation Defined and Distinguished............................ 773 B. The Milieu--FourDistinct Settings for ParallelLitigation .......... 776 C. The Remedies: Five Responses to ParallelLitigation ................. 777 1. Do Nothing ............................................................................. 777 2. Transfer and Consolidation .................................................... 777 3. Dismissals and Stays (and Abatements) ............................... 778 4. Antisuit Injunctions ................................................................ 780 D. The Common Doctrines: Six Themes in ParallelLitigation ....... 782 1. The First-Filed Case ............................................................... 782 2. In Rem Cases .......................................................................... 782 3. Declaratory Actions ............................................................... 782 4. Degree of Similarity ................................................................ 783 5. Discretionary Standard ........................................................... 783 6. C om ity .................................................................................... 783 E. The Slow Development of Precedent and FederalCourt P rom inence................................................................................... 784 F. Unitary Discussions...................................................................... 785 *G. Terminology.................................................................................. 785 II. INTRAJURISDICTIONAL LITIGATION ................................................... 785 A. Intra-FederalParallel Litigation ................................................. 785 1. Who filed first? .......................................... ............................ 788 2. In rem cases ............................................................................ 788 3. Statutory Preemption ............................................................ 788 4. Which court decides? .................................... ......................... 789 B. Transfer and Consolidation.......................................................... 789 1. Consolidation Within the Same Division .............................. 789 2. Move to Another Division Within the District ...................... 789 3. Move to Another Division or District to Correct Venue ....... 790 4. Transfers Based on Forum Selection Agreement .................. 791 *The author is grateful to Professors Anna Teller and Susan Phillips, and law librarian Wendy Law, for significant help in researching and rewriting this article, and to attorneys Brian Stagner, Lu Pham, Albon Head, and Jeff Bragalone for valuable editorial suggestions. -Professor of Law, Texas Wesleyan University School of Law. 770 BA YLOR LA WREVIEW [Vol. 51:4 5. Inconvenient Forum Transfers ............................................... 792 6. Multidistrict Transfer of Multiple Cases for Consolidated Pretrial Proceedings .............................................................. 795 C. Dismissal ...................................................................................... 796 1. Voluntary Dismissals and The "Two Dismissal Rule" ......... 796 2. Involuntary Dismissals ........................................................... 797 D. Stays in Favor of Other FederalCourt Litigation........................ 799 1. The Landis Case ..................................................................... 799 2. Various Tests in the Circuits .................................................. 801 3. Stay of Derivative Suits ......................................................... 807 .4. Enjoining Other Federal Litigation ........................................ 808 III. INTRASTATE PARALLEL LITIGATION ................................................... 813 A. Consolidationand Transfers In Texas ......................................... 813 1. Consolidation W ithin One Court ........................................... 813 2. Transfers within a Judicial District ........................................ 813 3. Transfers Between Different Judicial Districts in the Same State ........................................................................................ 8 14 a. Improper Venue .............................................................. 814 b. Impartiality..................................................................... 814 c. Consent ...........................................................................814 d. Inconvenient Forum........................................................ 815 e. Multidistrict Transfer ..................................................... 815 B. Stays, Dismissals and Injunctions: Texas and Other States..... 816 1. General Principles .................................................................. 816 2. Statutory Dismissal ................................................................ 819 IV. INTERSTATE PARALLEL LITIGATION ................................................... 820 A. "Transfers" to a Sister State ........................................................ 820 B. Dismissing or Staying the Local Action ....................................... 821 1. Dismissal Under the First-Filed Rule .................................... 822 2. Dismissal of the Second-Filed Declaratory Action ............... 825 3. Dismissals Based on Forum Selection Agreements ............... 826 4. Interstate Forum Non Conveniens ......................................... 832 5. Staying the Local Action ........................................................ 837 C. Antisuit Injunctions Against Sister State Litigation ..................... 840 1. General Principles in Texas ................................................... 841 2. Other States ............................................................................ 848 3. Refusal to Recognize Another State's Injunction .................. 849 V. FEDERAL COURTS AND PENDING STATE LITIGATION ......................... 849 A. Transferringthe FederalCase to State Court............. 850 B. Dismissingthe FederalAction Based on a Forum Selection Agreement ..................................................................................... 851 1999] PARALLEL LITIGATION C. Stays and Dismissals Based on the Abstention Doctrines............ 854 1. Colorado River Abstention: Economy, Convenience and "Wise Judicial Administration" ........................855 a. Moses Cone and Wilton Refine the Test .........................860 b. Other Federal Tests for State-FederalParallels ........... 863 2. Dismissals or Stays Based on Federalism-The Other Abstention Doctrines ..............................................................864 a. Pullman Abstention-- Unclear State Law with ConstitutionalImplications ............................................ 864 b. Burford Abstention--Avoiding Conflict With Complex State Regulatory Systems ................................................870 c. Thibodaux Abstention: Difficult Questions of State L a w .................................................................................872 3. Abstention Procedure: Reserving Rights to a Federal F orum .....................................................................................874 D . Enjoining the State Action ............................................................875 1. The Younger/Pennzoil Doctrine and Equitable Abstention... 876 a. The Younger and Pennzoil Cases ...................................876 b. Younger's Application in Civil Cases............................. 879 c. Perfecting a Younger Objection .....................................881 2. Statutory Abstention: The Anti-Injunction Act .....................881 a. "Expressly Authorized" Injunctions............................... 882 b. Injunctions "In Aid of Its Jurisdiction". ........................ 885 c. Injunctions to Prevent Relitigation... * ...... 888 E. Summary of Limits on FederalCourts Enjoining State Court L itiga tion ......................................................................................896 VI. STATE COURTS AND PENDING FEDERAL LITIGATION .........................897 A. "Transfers "from State to FederalCourt: FederalRemoval .....897 B. Dismissing or Staying the State Case........................................... 898 1. Forum Selection Clauses ........................................................898 2. O ther Grounds........................................................................ 898 3. Enjoining the Federal Litigation ............................................901 VII. FEDERAL COURTS AND FOREIGN LITIGATION ....................................904 A. Dismissingor Staying
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MARC Code List for Countries: Part I
    Code Sequence PART II: CODE SEQUENCE Discontinued codes are identified by a hyphen preceding the code aa Albania ce Sri Lanka abc Alberta cf Congo (Brazzaville) -ac Ashmore and Cartier Islands cg Congo (Democratic Republic) ae Algeria ch China (Republic : 1949- ) af Afghanistan ci Croatia ag Argentina cj Cayman Islands -ai Anguilla ck Colombia ai Armenia (Republic) cl Chile -air Armenian S.S.R. cm Cameroon aj Azerbaijan -cn Canada -ajr Azerbaijan S.S.R. cou Colorado aku Alaska -cp Canton and Enderbury Islands alu Alabama cq Comoros am Anguilla cr Costa Rica an Andorra -cs Czechoslovakia ao Angola ctu Connecticut aq Antigua and Barbuda cu Cuba aru Arkansas cv Cape Verde as American Samoa cw Cook Islands at Australia cx Central African Republic au Austria cy Cyprus aw Aruba -cz Canal Zone ay Antarctica dcu District of Columbia azu Arizona deu Delaware ba Bahrain dk Denmark bb Barbados dm Benin bcc British Columbia dq Dominica bd Burundi dr Dominican Republic be Belgium ea Eritrea bf Bahamas ec Ecuador bg Bangladesh eg Equatorial Guinea bh Belize em East Timor bi British Indian Ocean Territory enk England bl Brazil er Estonia bm Bermuda Islands -err Estonia bn Bosnia and Hercegovina es El Salvador bo Bolivia et Ethiopia bp Solomon Islands fa Faroe Islands br Burma fg French Guiana bs Botswana fi Finland bt Bhutan fj Fiji bu Bulgaria fk Falkland Islands bv Bouvet Island flu Florida bw Belarus fm Micronesia (Federated States) -bwr Byelorussian S.S.R. fp French Polynesia bx Brunei fr France cau California fs Terres australes et antarctiques cb Cambodia françaises cc China ft Djibouti cd Chad gau Georgia MARC Code List for Countries page 37 Code Sequence gb Kiribati kz Kazakhstan gd Grenada -kzr Kazakh S.S.R.
    [Show full text]
  • INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol
    Federal Court Jurisdiction in Civil Forfeitures of Personal Property Pursuant to the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act Karen L. Fisher* Introduction Civil forfeiture under the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act 1 has become surrounded by much controversy, since the Reagan Administration's introduction in March 1988 of a zero- tolerance policy in the war on drugs. Since then, federal and state drug enforcement activities have included the increasing use of civil forfeiture as a means of deterring illegal drug trafficking, punishing drug dealers and users, and providing additional revenues for the war on drugs. Under the Drug Control Act, a person may forfeit any real or personal property used to facilitate the manufacture, transportation, sale, or possession of illegal drugs or property acquired with proceeds connected with drug trade. 2 This Note will focus on federal civil procedure in cases involving forfeiture of personal property pursuant to the Drug Control Act. The issue considered is whether execution of a civil forfeiture judgment should extinguish federal courts' jurisdiction, thereby precluding a claimant from seeking relief from an adverse judgment. Personal property, especially intangibles, is of particular interest because the situs, or jurisdictional location, of such property is movable and often difficult to ascertain. Civil forfeiture cases under the Drug Control Act traditionally have followed in rem admiralty procedures. Under admiralty rules, the court's jurisdiction continues only so long as it maintains physical control over the property. Hence, the court loses jurisdiction once it executes judg- ment. However, in recent years, several circuits instead have asserted in personam jurisdiction over the government as plaintiff, thereby preserving a losing claimant's right of appeal after execution of the judgment.
    [Show full text]
  • The CANADIAN FIELD-NATURALIST
    The CANADIAN FIELD-NATURALIST Published by THE OTTAWA FIELD-NATURALISTS’ CLUB, Ottawa Canada Linda J. Gormezano © A black and white version of this photo appears on the cover of Volume 122, Number 4 (Oct–Dec 2008) of the Journal and is referred to in the text of Rockwell, Gormezano and Hedman 122:323-326. Grizzly Bears, Ursus arctos, in Wapusk National Park, Northeastern Manitoba ROBERT ROCKWELL 1,3 , L INDA GORMEZANO 1, and DARYLL HEDMAN 2 1Division of Vertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79 th Street, New York, New York 10024 USA 2Manitoba Conservation, Thompson, Manitoba R8N 1X4 Canada 3Corresponding author: Robert Rockwell e-mail: [email protected] Rockwell, Robert, Linda Gormezano, and Daryll Hedman. 2008. Grizzly Bears, Ursus arctos, in Wapusk National Park, northeastern Manitoba. Canadian Field-Naturalist 122(4): 323-326. We report on nine sightings of Grizzly Bears ( Ursus arctos ) in northeastern Manitoba in what is now Wapusk National Park. Although biological research in the region has been conducted regularly since 1965, all sightings have been made since 1996. The Grizzly Bears were seen either along rivers known to harbor fish or in an area known for berries . Key Words: Grizzly Bear, Ursus arctos , Wapusk National Park, Manitoba, Canada. Grizzly Bears ( Ursus arctos ) are reported to have been absent from Manitoba historically at least through 1989 (Banfield 1959, 1974; Harington et al. 1962; Banci 1991, McLellan And Bianci 1999). Some recent accounts and range maps have included Manitoba in the Grizzly Bear’s regular range (e.g., Schwartz et al. 2003), while others indicate that the regular range ends north of the Manitoba border but list rare, extra-limital observations for at least two sites along the Hudson Bay coast of Manitoba (e.g., Ross 2002*).
    [Show full text]
  • Jg U O F N'.Tio:;
    J GUOF N'.TIO:;, C. 121,1.:, 44.12 34/711. Communicated to the Council and Members Geneva ; inarch 17th. 19 34. of the League. SAAR E^STN. PETITION FROM IHE "SAARL.iNPISCHE WI RT5C1IAFTSYE RE INI GUNG” . Note by the Secretary-Genera 1, The Secretary-General has the honour to circulate for the information of the Council and Members of the League a letter from the Chair : .an of the Governing Com­ mission of the Saar Territory, dated March Oth, 1934, enclosing a petition from the Saarl&ndische Wirtschafts- vereinigung", dated February 19th, 1934. Translation) Saarbruck, March 8th, 1934. To the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. Sir, I have the honour to send you herewith a petition, dated February 19th, 1934, addressed to the Council of the League of Nations by the Saar Economic Association ( :,Saarl9ndische Wirtschaftavereinigung”) „ The Governing Commission, referring to its last periodi­ cal report and to the special reports submitted by it to the Council in January 1934, considers that the measures concerning the allocation of meeting-halls, licensed premises, etc . seem to come vri thin the province of the Plebiscite Co emission which is to be appointed by the Council. I have the honour to be, etc., (Signed) G. G. KNOX, 2 - nslation from G-êrrrrn j SAAR ECONOMIC AS SC 01, TION Saarlouis, February 19th, 1934 The undersigned Committee of the Saar iicononic Associa­ tion, Saarlouis, has the honour to acquaint the League of Nations with the following : The League of Nations has devoted special attention to the question of the plebiscite in the Saar Territory and has appointed a sps cial Commission for this purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • Venue: an Abridged Legal Analysis of Where a Federal Crime May Be Tried
    Venue: An Abridged Legal Analysis of Where a Federal Crime May Be Tried Updated December 6, 2018 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RS22361 Venue: An Abridged Legal Analysis of Where a Federal Crime May Be Tried Summary The United States Constitution assures those charged with a serious federal crime that they will be prosecuted in the state and district in which the crime occurred. A crime occurs in any district in which any of its “conduct” elements are committed. Some offenses are committed entirely within a single district; there they may be tried. Other crimes have elements that have occurred in more than one district. Still other crimes have been committed overseas and so have occurred outside any district. Statutory provisions, court rules, and judicial interpretations implement the Constitution’s requirements and dictate where multi-district crimes or overseas crimes may be tried. Most litigation involves either a question of whether the government’s selection of venue in a multi-district case is proper or whether the court should grant the accused’s request for a change of venue. The government bears the burden of establishing venue by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant may waive trial in a proper venue either explicitly or by failing to object to prosecution in an improper venue in a timely manner. Section 3237 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code supplies three general rules for venue in multi-district cases. Tax cases may be tried where the taxpayer resides. Mail and interstate commerce offenses may be tried in any district traversed during the course of a particular crime.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Welles Family in England
    HISTORY OFHE T WELLES F AMILY IN E NGLAND; WITH T HEIR DERIVATION IN THIS COUNTRY FROM GOVERNOR THOMAS WELLES, OF CONNECTICUT. By A LBERT WELLES, PRESIDENT O P THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OP HERALDRY AND GENBALOGICAL REGISTRY OP NEW YORK. (ASSISTED B Y H. H. CLEMENTS, ESQ.) BJHttl)n a account of tljt Wu\\t% JFamtlg fn fHassssacIjusrtta, By H ENRY WINTHROP SARGENT, OP B OSTON. BOSTON: P RESS OF JOHN WILSON AND SON. 1874. II )2 < 7-'/ < INTRODUCTION. ^/^Sn i Chronology, so in Genealogy there are certain landmarks. Thus,n i France, to trace back to Charlemagne is the desideratum ; in England, to the Norman Con quest; and in the New England States, to the Puri tans, or first settlement of the country. The origin of but few nations or individuals can be precisely traced or ascertained. " The lapse of ages is inces santly thickening the veil which is spread over remote objects and events. The light becomes fainter as we proceed, the objects more obscure and uncertain, until Time at length spreads her sable mantle over them, and we behold them no more." Its i stated, among the librarians and officers of historical institutions in the Eastern States, that not two per cent of the inquirers succeed in establishing the connection between their ancestors here and the family abroad. Most of the emigrants 2 I NTROD UCTION. fled f rom religious persecution, and, instead of pro mulgating their derivation or history, rather sup pressed all knowledge of it, so that their descendants had no direct traditions. On this account it be comes almost necessary to give the descendants separately of each of the original emigrants to this country, with a general account of the family abroad, as far as it can be learned from history, without trusting too much to tradition, which however is often the only source of information on these matters.
    [Show full text]
  • Winning Your Case Before You Go to Trial1
    Winning Your Case Before You Go To Trial Chapter 16 Winning Your Case Before You Go To Trial Michelle May O’Neil O’Neil Anderson Two Lincoln Centre 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75240 (972) 852-8000 Website: www.oneilanderson.com Blog: www.dallastxdivorce.com Email: [email protected] Hon. William Harris 233rd Judicial District Court Family Law Center, 5th Floor 200 East Weatherford Street Fort Worth, Texas 76196 (817) 224-2686 Co-authors: Nathan Anderson Ashley Bowline Russell O’Neil Anderson O’Neil Anderson Two Lincoln Centre Two Lincoln Centre 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 500 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75240 Dallas, Texas 75240 (972) 852-8000 (972) 852-8000 Website: www.oneilanderson.com Website: www.oneilanderson.com Blog: www.dallastxdivorce.com Blog: www.dallastxdivorce.com Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] State Bar of Texas Advanced Family Law Course 2009 Honoring the Past… Embracing the Future Chapter 16 Winning Your Case Before You Go To Trial Chapter 16 Michelle May O’Neil Founding Partner O’Neil Anderson Two Lincoln Centre 5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75240 (972) 852-8000 Website: www.oneilanderson.com Blog: www.dallastxdivorce.com Email: [email protected] Ms. O’Neil founded the firm with her friend and partner Nathan T. Anderson based on their desire to provide clients with high- quality representation in a personalized atmosphere. She has over 18 years of experience representing men, women, and children related to family law matters such as divorce, child custody, and complex property division. Described by one lawyer as “a lethal combination of sweet-and-salty”, Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Directs State Court to Decide Whether Indian Tribe Can Invoke Sovereign Immunity in Property Dispute
    Legal Sidebari Supreme Court Directs State Court to Decide Whether Indian Tribe Can Invoke Sovereign Immunity in Property Dispute Hillel R. Smith Legislative Attorney July 16, 2018 Indian tribes possess “inherent sovereign authority,” which means, among other things, that they cannot be subject to lawsuits unless the tribe waives or Congress expressly abrogates such immunity. Recently, the Supreme Court in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren ruled that a Washington state court erroneously rejected an Indian tribe’s claim that sovereign immunity foreclosed a lawsuit involving a property dispute between two landowners and the tribe. Citing the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation, the state court had reasoned that an Indian tribe’s claim of sovereign immunity did not bar courts from exercising jurisdiction to settle disputes over real property. In reversing the state court’s decision, the Supreme Court held that the state court’s reliance on Yakima was misplaced because that case did not address the scope of tribal sovereign immunity, but only concerned the question of whether a particular federal law permitted state taxation of certain land within an Indian reservation. The Supreme Court directed the lower court to address the plaintiffs’ new contention that an Indian tribe cannot assert sovereign immunity in an action relating to immovable property located in in the territory of another sovereign, namely, in another state. While the Supreme Court’s decision clarifies its ruling in Yakima, the Court’s decision leaves unresolved the underlying issue of whether an Indian tribe may invoke sovereign immunity in cases involving disputes over real property.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 in Mexico: a Network of Epidemics
    COVID-19 in Mexico: A Network of Epidemics Guillermo de Anda-J´auregui1;2 1 Computational Genomics Division, National Institute of Genomic Medicine, Mexico City, Mexico 2C´atedrasConacyt Para J´ovenes Investigadores, National Council on Science and Technology, Mexico City, Mexico Abstract Mexico, like the rest of the world, is currently facing the The COVID-19 pan- demic. Given the size of its territory, the efforts to contain the disease have involved both national and regional measures. For this work, the curves of daily new cases of each municipality reported by the federal government were com- pared. We found that 114 municipalities form a large network of statistically dependent epidemic phenomena. Based on the network's modular structure, these 114 municipalities can be split into four distinct communities of coor- dinated epidemic phenomena. These clusters are not limited by geographical proximity. These findings can be helpful for public health officials for the eval- uation of past strategies and the development of new directed interventions. 1 Introduction Mexico reported its first imported case of COVID-19 in late February [1]. Since then, COVID-19 has extended throughout the Mexican territory, with over 90,000 accumulated cases and over 10,000 confirmed deaths by June 2020 [2] The federal government reported a major re-conversion project to increase its hospital capacity [3]. Due to the lack of pharmacological treatments against SARS-CoV-2, Mexico, like the rest of the world, resorted to the use of Non Pharmacological Interventions (NPI) to manage the spread of the disease; these arXiv:2006.11635v1 [physics.soc-ph] 20 Jun 2020 efforts were branded as the "National Period of Healthy Distance" ("Jornada Nacional de Sana Distancia," JNSD), originally planned to last from March 23rd to April 30th, and then extended through May 30th [4].
    [Show full text]
  • Recusation of Federal Judges
    Buffalo Law Review Volume 17 Number 3 Article 11 4-1-1968 Recusation of Federal Judges Lester B. Orfield Indiana University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview Part of the Civil Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Lester B. Orfield, Recusation of Federal Judges, 17 Buff. L. Rev. 799 (1968). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol17/iss3/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECUSATION OF FEDERAL JUDGES LESTER B. O1m~rLD* CHANGE or VENUE DISTINGUISHE RECUSATION refers to disqualification of a judge and is to be sharply dis- tinguished from change of venue which as to criminal cases is governed by Rules 20 through 22 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It is a misuse of terms to say that the venue is changed when the trial is had in the court where the suit was brought and some other than the regular judge is called in to preside on the trial, in the very court in which the record has all the while remained.' DE FACTO JUDGE DISTINGUISHED The actions of a de facto judge, so far as they affect third persons, are not open to question.2 THE CommoN LAW RULE At common law the major causes for disqualification of a judge were "sub- stantial or direct interest in the event of the litigation, or close ties of blood or affinity ...
    [Show full text]
  • 1 in the Iowa District Court in and for Muscatine County
    E-FILED 2018 MAR 19 11:53 AM MUSCATINE - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR MUSCATINE COUNTY LAURIE FREEMAN, SHARON MOCKMORE, BECCY BOYSEL, GARY D. Case No. LACV021232 BOYSEL, LINDA L. GOREHAM, GARY R. GOREHAM, KELCEY BRACKETT, and BOBBIE LYNN WEATHERMAN RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR CHANGE OF v. VENUE GRAIN PROCESSING CORPORATION, Defendant. On December 15, 2017, Plaintiffs, the Freeman Class, by and through their counsel, filed their Motion for Change of Venue. In brief, Plaintiffs claim that they cannot receive a fair trial in Muscatine County due to pervasive bias against the Freeman Class and undue influence possessed by the Defendant, Grain Processing Corporation (“GPC”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that the Court transfer venue for trial pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.801(3). GPC filed its Resistance on January 31, 2018, to which Plaintiffs replied on February 12, 2018. The Plaintiffs’ Motion came before the Court for oral argument in a hearing held on February 14, 2018. Plaintiffs were represented by Attorneys James Larew, Sara Siskind, and Scott Entin. GPC was represented by Attorneys Kelsey Knowles, Eric Knoernschild, and John Kuhl. The Court, having considered the written and oral arguments of counsel for both sides, and the applicable law, enters the following ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Change of Venue. 1 E-FILED 2018 MAR 19 11:53 AM MUSCATINE - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT Factual Background and Proceedings GPC is a large business located in Muscatine County. Along with its parent company, the Kent Corporation, it employs over 1,000 Muscatine residents.1 GPC is a major economic force to the Muscatine area, spending an estimated $1 million per day in local and state economies and reporting more than $1 billion in sales.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuing Evolution of H6N2 Influenza a Virus in South African
    Abolnik et al. BMC Veterinary Research (2019) 15:455 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-019-2210-4 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Continuing evolution of H6N2 influenza a virus in South African chickens and the implications for diagnosis and control Celia Abolnik1* , Christine Strydom2, Dionne Linda Rauff2, Daniel Barend Rudolph Wandrag1 and Deryn Petty3 Abstract Background: The threat of poultry-origin H6 avian influenza viruses to human health emphasizes the importance of monitoring their evolution. South Africa’s H6N2 epidemic in chickens began in 2001 and two co-circulating antigenic sub-lineages of H6N2 could be distinguished from the outset. The true incidence and prevalence of H6N2 in the country has been difficult to determine, partly due to the continued use of an inactivated whole virus H6N2 vaccine and the inability to distinguish vaccinated from non-vaccinated birds on serology tests. In the present study, the complete genomes of 12 H6N2 viruses isolated from various farming systems between September 2015 and February 2019 in three major chicken-producing regions were analysed and a serological experiment was used to demonstrate the effects of antigenic mismatch in diagnostic tests. Results: Genetic drift in H6N2 continued and antigenic diversity in sub-lineage I is increasing; no sub-lineage II viruses were detected. Reassortment patterns indicated epidemiological connections between provinces as well as different farming systems, but there was no reassortment with wild bird or ostrich influenza viruses. The sequence mismatch between the official antigens used for routine hemagglutination inhibition (HI) testing and circulating field strains has increased steadily, and we demonstrated that H6N2 field infections are likely to be missed.
    [Show full text]