United States v. Curtimade Dairy, Inc.

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CURTIMADE DAIRY, INC., a…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 17, 2015

1:93-cv-005042 LJO GSA (E.D. Cal. Sep. 17, 2015)

Opinion

1:93-cv-005042 LJO GSA

09-17-2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CURTIMADE DAIRY, INC., a corporation, and BENJAMIN A. CURTI, and individual, Defendants.

Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM CONSENT DECREE OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION (Doc. 13)

On August 20, 1993, this Court ordered Defendants M. Curti & Sons, Inc.¹, a corporation, and Benjamin A. Curti (collectively, "Defendants") subject to the terms and conditions of a Consent Decree of Permanent Injunction ("Consent Decree"), which, among other things, rendered Defendants subject to Food and Drug Administration inspections of Defendants' operations. Doc. 10; Doc. 13-2, Ex. A. The Consent Decree contained a provision permitting Defendants to petition the Court to modify or vacate the injunction eighteen (18) months from the date of Defendants' last violation. Doc. 13-2, Ex. A at 5. Defendants make such a motion now, invoking Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5)(permitting relief from judgment where it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application), arguing that it is no longer equitable for the injunction to persist in this case because, for more than the required 18 months, there have been no violations at the facility. Curti Decl. at ¶ 7. The United States, the Plaintiff in this action, has indicated it does not object to relieving Defendants from the conditions of the Consent Decree. Doc. 17.

1 The original Defendant M. Curti & Sons, Inc. has ceased to exist; the dairy facility subject to the Consent Decree is owed and operated by Curtimade Dairy, Inc. and managed by Benjamin A. Curti. See Declaration of Benjamin Curti ("Curti Decl."), Doc. 13-4, at ¶¶ 3, 5. --------

Having reviewed the entire record, and in light of Plaintiff's non-opposition, the Court:

(1) concludes it is appropriate to rule on the pending motion without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g);

(2) directs the Clerk of Court to VACATE the hearing on the motion, currently set for September 25, 2015;

(3) GRANTS Defendants' motion for relief from the Consent Decree; and

(4) VACATES the injunction. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17 , 2015

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE