Activity In Case 1:10-cv-00487-WMN Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Alan & Kristin Hudson Farm et al Order On Motion For Summary Judgment

This attachment contains a writing by the judge in the case of the Waterkeeper Alliance vs. Alan & Kristin Hudson and Perdue Farms and it contains what could be some very good news.

I urge you to take a few minutes to read it. Here is my understanding of what the judge wrote.

The judge says he is not able to grant a “summary judgment” (a summary judgment is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial) at this time, but he does have the authority to make a decision when the case goes to trial.

In the 8th paragraph (If the court accepts the credibility….), he says that if the Waterkeeper’s key witness Dr. Bell is credible, he could reach one conclusion at trial.

In the next paragraph, he says that if he believes the Hudson’s and Perdue’s witnesses, he could reach another conclusion.

The following paragraph is especially revealing (As counsel might detect….). Read it and then read it again. It is strong criticism of an original plaintiff Kathy Philips of the Assateague Coastal Trust.

In the following two paragraphs, the judge indicates that the Waterkeeper Alliance changed its approach in trying to say what the CAFO was.

In the 13th paragraph (While the court’s concerns…..), the judge says he has the power to require the Waterkeeper Alliance to pay the Hudson and Perdue legal fees if the Hudsons and Perdue prevail.

The judge then encourages the parties to try and settle out of court.

And in the next to last paragraph (Finally, to the extent….), he has harsh words for the University of Maryland Environmental Law Clinic.

Bottom line from an attorney who read this letter…..The Hudsons and Perdue didn't win the summary judgment motion but the judge is clearly telling the law clinic that it will likely lose the ultimate trial - and may have to pay the legal fees of the Hudsons.