A federal judge on Tuesday denied a bid by poultry producer Perdue and an Eastern Shore farmer to make the Waterkeeper Alliance pay more than $3 million in attorneys' fees for its failed lawsuit alleging that the company and its contract grower were polluting a Chesapeake Bay tributary.
Judge William M. Nickerson concluded that while he believed the New York-based environmental group had mishandled preparation of its case, that did not merit the rare sanction of making the losing alliance pay the other side's attorneys.
But that might not be the end of the bitter, nationally publicized legal saga, which began nearly four years ago. The lawyer for Berlin farmers Alan and Kristin Hudson said late Tuesday that he's planning to seek reimbursement from the state, even though a Perdue-supported group, SaveFarmFamilies.org, paid his bill.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
At the outset, our Editorial staff made a prediction that the attorney's fees were not going to be paid by the Waterkeepers Alliance.
ReplyDeletePerdue Farms spokeswoman Julie DeYoung said the Salisbury-based company was disappointed. Perdue had sought $2.5 million for its attorney's fees, she said, so that "the Waterkeepers and other organizations like them would think twice about pursuing legal action that uses hard-working American families as pawns in their attack on modern agriculture."
Beazer's response - In my honest opinion, my advice to Perdue's CEO is to start making preparations to clear out of here as the business landscape is simply not safe to conduct business anymore given the hostile environment. Any firm that has to spend 2.5 million dollars to defend itself in order to conduct business - let this be a strong signal for any potential business considering to locate to this area. IT IS NOT SAFE TO CONDUCT BUSINESS - PERIOD!
Safer havens can be found elsewhere.
beezer
ReplyDeleteyou mean in canada?
This is why places like South Carolina has factories popping up everywhere and Maryland has none.
ReplyDelete@Beezer, Ah yes, lets just encourage such a large and important business to leave the shore and the state to make a point. Surely the answer to our problems is to tell business that they shouldn't open here. Our economy is struggling and you think driving jobs away is the answer? You must a politician.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, the state should not being paying for either sides fees.
Unfortunately, you can sue anyone for anything in this liberal Country.
ReplyDeleteWe simply need a law that makes the loser of the suit to pay the other's legal fees. This will stop most of the frivolous stuff, in my opinion.
The stupidity in the legal system is mind boggling sometimes.
A much better researched and factual article than the one in today's DT's.
ReplyDeleteWhoever is running the show over at the DT's is obviously an amateur.
While I understand that person did not write the article, they need to make sure than anything and everything that is published is factual otherwise they will and do come across as an untrustworthy, unreliable news source.
Next will be a biddy tax. Just wait and see. The Maryland legislature will introduce a bill to tax the hatching eggs or it will tax the biddies as they are delivered to the chicken house. They tried it once before - it is just a matter of time.
ReplyDeleteTo 8:26 - I don't think you got the point. For any business, (small or large) - it is not safe to do business when one has to spend 2.5 million just to defend itself irregardless of the outcome. Since the Waterkeepers lost - they should bare the entire brunt of bringing this case on.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Beazer's observation, it is simply not safe to conduct business.
Perdue has already started moving a substantial portion of their business to slower, lower, Delaware. More and more of their operations have moved North.
ReplyDeleteThe laws are federal that's why the trial was held in federal court. These laws apply to any state in the nation.
ReplyDeleteSo every time you hear threats of going to leave the state for this and that reason, it's all hogwash.
@9:05
ReplyDeleteWhile you may be right, I still find in unacceptable to actively encourage businesses to settle elsewhere. If you don't like the way things are taking taking shape they do something about it, don't just sit there and give up by accepting theirs nothing that can be done and that companies are better off elsewhere.
Not exactly true Brian Dayton. While it's true you can file a lawsuit for anything, 90+% of lawsuits are dismissed right off the get go because they have no legal merit. Of the less than 10% that go forward very few ever see inside a courtroom and are settled.
ReplyDeleteWe've already paid three hundred thousand dollars!
ReplyDeleteBusinesses are going to have to start banding together in order to take 'action' to the judicial system.
ReplyDeleteFor far to long now, businesses have exited this Country on such a grand scale that it can no longer go unnoticed. Just like an endangered species - the eagle, or Whooping Crane - businesses have also become an endangered US species. The judges who have participated and helped in the businesses extermination are going to have to be held accountable.
It was my understanding that the University of MARYLAND, a state run college, was the catalyst, worker bee, and lead motivator to bring in New York and the feds, which would, in my opinion, make the State of Maryland the main loser in this case, and in debt to Perdue and Hudson Farm for legal fees and court costs. Maybe they could share the load with their cohorts, but that should be between them.
ReplyDeleteReference 5:13 Posting
ReplyDeleteYes, you are correct. The University of Maryland law school provided legal aid to go after Perdue and its grower. They used taxpayers money to fuel the action.
I feel like a lot of the commenters above - and if I were Perdue, I would figure out a way to get the heck out of Maryland.
Maryland now has enough social programs that people can temporarily survive without private industry. Many of the governing legislators actually believe that they can tax Maryland into prosperity.
Yes it's true that the University of Maryland Law School helped in the law suit, and guess were some of their funding came from,the coffers of Wicomico, Worcester, and Somerset Counties. How is that, well about five years ago Wor Wic received a little gift of a golf course near west Ocean City a gift you say, well part of the deal was that Wor Wic had to make a cool five hundred thousand dollar donation to the law school. These funds came from Wor Wic's operating budget that was funded by the taxpayers of the three lower shore counties. The taxpayers are now funding a place for elected officils and bureaucrats to play golf PLUS funding a law school that is helping push the poultry business from the shore.
ReplyDelete9:05
ReplyDeleteIrregardless is not a word; the use of it, however, is my boss' pet peeve.
Now go forward.
ReplyDeletethey should have to pay. perdue can afford it, but not the hudsons. judge should have thrown the case out of court. wka were tresspassing & obtained their data unlawfully!
ReplyDeleteany frivilous suit that goes to court should be paid for by the one bringing suit.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteany frivilous suit that goes to court should be paid for by the one bringing suit.
August 29, 2013 at 5:34 AM
They have to prove it was frivolous. Aside from that, I think they should be paid too.
And why would you encourage businesses to set up shop here when the facts are it is not business friendly?
Don't you think they will find out anyway? They probably already know from other businesses that have left this area.
Don't you think it would be better to clean up the attitudes and laws against businesses, then to lie to them?
That says something about ethics in this area as well.
We need the jobs that come with businesses but you have to allow them to make money so they can pay a fair wage.