|
Washington Lawyer Search - Listings for Bennett Dick
Name: Bennett Dick
Address: Everett, WA 98201
Phone Number: 425-335-0433
|
Specialties:
|
Dui And Traffic Law
Criminal Trial
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
RIOGRANDE UNDERWRITE v PITTS FARMS INC IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40823 Summary Calendar RIO GRANDE UNDERWRITERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus PITTS FARMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas _ December 18, 2001 Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit Judges. REAVLEY, Circuit Judge: Rio Grande Underwriters, Inc. (Rio Grande) appeals the district court's order dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, its petition for a stay and order compelling arbitration. For the reasons that follow we AFFIRM. Pitts Farms, an onion grower, filed suit in state court alleging state law claims against Rio Grande for its failure to procure the right crop insurance coverage on Pitts' behalf.(1) When Pitts Farms sustained losses to its onion crop, it found that the insurance policy in place failed to designate its red and yellow onions into separate units. According to Pitts Farms, the failure to designate the onion types as separate insurable units as permitted by federal regulations prevented Pitts from fully recovering for its losses. Rio Grande seeks to avoid the litigation in state court by enforcing arbitration provisions in its contracts with Pitts Farms. Unable to obtain relief in state court, Rio Grande filed a petition in federal court requesting a stay and order compelling arbitration. Such relief is available in federal district court under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) only if the court would have had subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying civil action. 9 U.S.C. § 4. Although Rio Grande has suggested numerous bases for jurisdiction, the district court properly found them to be without merit. First, Rio Grande argues that because its contracts with Pitts Farms relate to interstate commerce, it follows that the FAA applies and that the case may therefore be heard in federal c...
Schroeder v. Bush FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 1000 AUG 24 2001 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT EUGENE SCHRODER; EDWIN PETROWSKY; R. RUSSELL GRIDER; and WESLEY No. 00_1357 MYERS, Plaintiffs_Appellants, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States; ANN M. VENEMAN, United States Secretary of Agriculture; PAUL H. O'NEILL, United States Secretary of the Treasury;(1) and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants_Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 00_K_154) Walker Fowler Todd, Chagrin Falls, Ohio, for Plaintiffs_Appellants. Peter J. Krumholz, Assistant United States Attorney (Thomas L. Strickland, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Denver, Colorado, for Defendants_ Appellees. Before EBEL, Circuit Judge, McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRIMMER,(2) District Judge. EBEL, Circuit Judge. Appellants are farmers or ranchers who live and work within the territorial boundaries of the Tenth Circuit and who seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the President of the United States, the United States Secretary of Agriculture, the United States Secretary of the Treasury, and the United States of America (collectively, "Appellees"). Appellants seek, in essence, an order requiring Appellees and their agents to maintain market conditions favorable to small farmers. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, writing, "The Complaint seeks to have this court determine political questions which are properly addressed [by] the elected branches of the government. This Court has no jurisdiction over the discretionary acts of either. Plaintiffs' remedies are at the polling place, not the courts." Schroder v. Clinton, No. 00_ CV_154_K (D. Colo. July 6, 2000) (hereinafter "D.Ct. Order"). We agree that Appellants ask us to consider nonjusticiable political questions and that (1) Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), ...
RODRIGUEZ v. WHITING FARMS INC. FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit FEB 10 2004 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ELADIO RODRIGUEZ, individually; MARTIN GOMEZ, individually, Plaintiffs - Appellants, No. 02-1483 vs. WHITING FARMS, INC.; THOMAS WHITING, individually, Defendants - Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO (D.C. No. 99-RB-2490 (CBS)) Patricia L. Medige, Colorado Legal Services, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs - Appellants. Sam D. Starritt (and Michael C. Santo, on the brief), Dufford, Waldeck, Milburn & Krohn, L.L.P., Grand Junction, Colorado, for Defendants - Appellees. Before KELLY, HARTZ, Circuit Judges and CASSELL(1), District Judge. KELLY, Circuit Judge. (1) The Honorable Paul G. Cassell, United States District Judge for the District of Utah, sitting by designation. Plaintiffs-Appellants Eladio Rodriguez and Martin Gomez brought this suit against their former employer, Thomas Whiting and Whiting Farms, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Whiting Farms"), claiming Whiting Farms failed to pay them overtime as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA" or the "Act"). Whiting Farms argues it is exempt from paying Rodriguez and Gomez overtime under the FLSA agricultural exemption, which provides an exemption to the overtime wage requirements for "any employee employed in agriculture." 29 U.S.C. 213(b)(12). Rodriguez and Gomez filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether they performed nonagricultural jobs and thus were entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. Whiting Farms also moved for summary judgment on all issues. The district court determined Rodriguez and Gomez were engaged in agricultural work and therefore were not entitled to overtime under the agricultural exemption. The district court granted Whiting Farms's motion for summary judgment and awarded costs to Whiting Farms. We have jurisdi...
|
|
|