Plaintiffs hereby submit their response to the counterclaims presented by. 1. Plaintiff Meadowsweet Dairy, LLC ( Meadowsweet ) denies the allegations

Similar documents
Pursuant to NY CLS CPLR 6301 et seq., Plaintiffs Meadowsweet Dairy, LLC and

STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS RESPONDENTS MOTION TO STAY HEARING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, Counterclaim-Defendants. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department P.O. Box 7288, Capitol Station Albany, NY

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/14/ :34 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/14/2016

Courthouse News Service

- against - NOTICE OF MOTION

Matter of Ames v McDermott 2010 NY Slip Op 31329(U) June 1, 2010 Sup Ct, Greene County Docket Number: 10/295 Judge: Joseph C. Teresi Republished from

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CLEARFIELD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION INSTRUCTIONS: PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF A CUSTODY ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD.

Case 5:15-cv DDC-KGS Document 44 Filed 06/02/15 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY. v. Case No. CL ANSWER AND GROUNDS OF DEFENSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case: 5:17-cv DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/06/17 Page: 1 of 5 - Page ID#: 1

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/19/ :45 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 168 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/19/2018

AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/14/ :34 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 28 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2018

WAIVER OF APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM. I,, the Respondent in. give up my right to have this Court appoint a Guardian Ad Litem

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO MOTION TO DISMISS OF RESPONDENTS JUDGE CLAIR E. DICKINSON AND COURT ADMINISTRATOR C. MICHAEL WALSH

Smetana v Vassar Bros. Hosp NY Slip Op 30006(U) January 4, 2013 Sup Ct, Dutchess County Docket Number: Judge: Lewis Jay Lubell

Case: 3:18-cv TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: 1

X

FILED: RICHMOND COUNTY CLERK 03/30/ :14 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/30/2018

Case 4:18-cv KGB Document 26 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 5

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CA REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT DIANE SMITH, R.N.

Case 2:08-cv GLF-NMK Document 62 Filed 12/09/09 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENT

Equity Recovery Corp. v Kahal Minchas Chinuch of Tartikov 2014 NY Slip Op 32617(U) September 22, 2014 Sup Ct, Kings County Docket Number: /14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. No. 3:75-CR-26-F No. 5:06-CV-24-F

Sethi v Singh 2011 NY Slip Op 33814(U) July 18, 2011 Sup Ct, Queens County Docket Number: 4958/11 Judge: Howard G. Lane Cases posted with a "30000"

Lisa Shaw, Karen Sprowal, Shino Tanikawa, Index No Isaac Carmignani,On Behalf of Themselves and their Children,,

Court of Common Pleas

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR STAY OF ENTRY OF JUDGEMENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/10/ :35 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 137 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2018

12PREM;^O ^, Q^0 APR CLERK OFCOURT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 11/02/ /16/ :25 04:16 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/02/2016

AUG CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS University of Cincinnati and The Ohio State University

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/12/2014 INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/12/2014

STATE OF LOUISIANA DR. BARBARA FERGUSON AND CHARLES J. HATFIELD VS. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

MOTION. responsible for Intervenor s lost silver holdings with the now defunct Old Glory Minting

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

Case 3:11-cv JCH Document 96 Filed 11/16/11 Page 1 of 13

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BOUNDARY

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/26/2013 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/26/2013

D&M REAL ESTATE, LLC T/A THE HORSE TAVERN & GRILL AND THE HORSE, INC., T/A THE HORSE TAVERN & GRILL S RESPONSE IN OBJECTION TO

NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE STATE OF LOUISIANA STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT, OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Defendants. This is an action for foreclosure of a first lien mortgage encumbering the single

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAMILY COURT Domestic Relations Branch

APPELLEE'S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING

Case 3:07-cv AWT Document 208 Filed 05/03/10 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : : : : :

CIVIL ACTION. Defendant Jeff Carter, by and through his counsel Law Offices of Walter M. Luers, by

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY S FEES AND COSTS FROM CITY OF FORT COLLINS

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. No CA COA

Ponton v Doctors Plastic Surgery, PLLC 2018 NY Slip Op 32403(U) September 25, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2016 Judge:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

p L DD 0q^^/41, CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO State ex rel., McGRATH Case No

Case M:06-cv VRW Document 543 Filed 01/15/2009 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO THE COUNTERCLAIMS OF GOOGLE INC.

Case4:13-cv JSW Document112 Filed05/05/14 Page1 of 3

Plaintiffs, Defendants. Defendant New York State Department of Department of Corrections and Community

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed March 16, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 2015

MOTION FOR TELEPHONE TESTIMONY OF W. SCOTT ROCKEFELLER WITH REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED RULING

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/08/ :24 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 37 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/08/2016

Case 3:05-cv Document 22 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/06/ :18 PM INDEX NO /2006 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 32 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2016. Exhibit 21

GREATER ATLANTIC LEGAL SERVICES, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SCOTT L. BEAU AND WYNCROFT, LLC ANSWER

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

2:15-cv CSB-EIL # 297 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION

Case Doc 51 Filed 05/30/17 Entered 05/30/17 13:41:52 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAMILY COURT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

Manning v Lavoie 2013 NY Slip Op 32928(U) November 12, 2013 Sup Ct, Suffolk County Docket Number: 42253/2009 Judge: Joseph Farneti Cases posted with

TO ALL CREDITORS AND OTHER PARTIES IN INTEREST: Pastorick, Esquire duly affirmed January 21, 2010, together with the Exhibits annexed hereto and

Case: 2:16-cv ALM-EPD Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/02/16 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 1

REPLY BRIEF OF THE APPELLANT

CAP. 336 [Rev. 2012] Dairy Industry

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PETITION AND MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD PURSUANT TO CPLR 7511

FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 05/19/ :15 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 62 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/19/2017

herein, counsel will move this Court before the Honorable Denny Chin, United States District

Case 1:13-cv BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/18/2016 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed affirmation of JEENA R. BELIL, dated XXXXXXX 4,

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NEWTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS CIVIL DIVISION THE ARKANSAS POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY COMMISSION'S RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF APPEAL

Case 1:06-cv MPT Document 12 Filed 06/06/2006 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Public Service Commission of West Virginia

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. v. Case No: PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL UNDER FRCP RULE 59

Spallone v Spallone 2014 NY Slip Op 32412(U) September 11, 2014 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Eileen A. Rakower Cases posted

NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. Petitioner Lewis Family Farm, Inc. submits this memorandum of law in support of its

Case 5:09-cv Document 22 Filed 06/29/10 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 405

Sample STATE OF NEW YORK CREDITOR. ,, SUMMONS Plaintiff, Index No. -vs- Date Filed: DEBTOR d/b/a. ,, Defendant. TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT:

FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 05/02/ :29 PM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 33 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/02/2017

Transcription:

STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT ALBANY COUNTY Meadowsweet Dairy, LLC Index No. 2277/08 and Steven and Barbara Smith Plaintiffs against Patrick Hooker, Commissioner PLAINTIFFS REPLY TO Department of Agriculture and DEFENDANTS COUNTERCLAIMS Markets of the State of New York and Will Francis, Director Assigned Judge Division of Milk Control and Hon. John Egan Dairy Services Defendants Plaintiffs hereby submit their response to the counterclaims presented by Defendants in their Answer to the Plaintiffs complaint 1. Plaintiff Meadowsweet Dairy, LLC ( Meadowsweet ) denies the allegations contained in paragraph 64 of Defendants Answer. Meadowsweet does not sell, offer for sale or otherwise make available any raw milk or raw dairy products to any member of the consuming public. The only people that have access to Meadowsweet s raw milk and raw dairy products are Meadowsweet s members, but those members do not buy or purchase any of that milk or those products from Meadowsweet. 2. Meadowsweet states that 1 NYCRR Section 2.3(b)(1) speaks for itself but is mischaracterized by Defendants in their Answer. Meadowsweet further states that 1 NYCRR Section 2.3(b)(1) does not use the word firm; it is not a dairy farm as that

term is defined by 1 NYCRR Section 2.2(h); it does not sell anything to anybody, and; it does not manufacture or produce pasteurized milk or pasteurized milk products. In all other respects, Meadowsweet denies the allegations contained in paragraph 65 of Defendants Answer. 3. Meadowsweet admits that it has not applied for and does not hold a raw milk permit but denies that it needs one because it is not regulated by 1 NYCRR Section 2.3(b)(1). In all other respects, Meadowsweet denies the allegations contained in paragraph 66 of Defendants Answer. 4. Meadowsweet denies the allegations contained in paragraph 67 of Defendants Answer. In addition, Meadowsweet denies it is regulated by 1 NYCRR Section 2.3(b)(1). 5. Meadowsweet can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in paragraph 68 of Defendants Answer because they do not make sense. In all other respects, Meadowsweet denies the allegations contained in paragraph 68 of Defendants Answer. 6. Meadowsweet states that A&ML section 199-a(1) speaks for itself but is mischaracterized by Defendants in their Answer. Specifically, A&ML section 199-a(1) does not use the word firm. In all other respects, Meadowsweet denies the allegations contained in paragraph 69 of Defendants Answer. 7. Meadowsweet states that 1 NYCRR Section 2.3(b)(1) speaks for itself but is mischaracterized by Defendants in their Answer. Specifically, 1 NYCRR Section 2.3(b)(1) does not use the word firm. In all other respects, Meadowsweet denies the allegations contained in paragraph 70 of Defendants Answer. 2

8. Meadowsweet states that 1 NYCRR Section 2.3(b)(1)(ii) speaks for itself but is mischaracterized by Defendants in their Answer. Specifically, 1 NYCRR Section 2.3(b)(1)(ii) does not use the word firm. In all other respects, Meadowsweet denies the allegations contained in paragraph 71 of Defendants Answer. 9. Meadowsweet denies the allegations contained in paragraph 72 of Defendants Answer because it is not regulated by either A&ML section 199-a(1), 1 NYCRR Section 2.3(b)(1), 1 NYCRR Section 2.3(b)(1)(ii), or A&ML section 200(3). In all other respects, Meadowsweet denies the allegations contained in paragraph 72 of Defendants Answer. 10. Plaintiffs Steve and Barbara Smith deny the allegations contained in paragraph 73 of Defendants Answer because they do not own or operate a milk plant as that term is defined by 1 NYCRR 2.2(bb) and they do not sell or offer for sale raw milk products to Meadowsweet s members. 11. Plaintiffs Steve and Barbara Smith state that A&ML Sections 199-a(1) and 201(7) speak for themselves. Plaintiffs Steve and Barbara Smith further state that these Sections apply only to pasteurized milk and since they do not pasteurize their milk those Sections do not apply to them. In all other respects, Plaintiffs Steve and Barbara Smith deny the allegations contained in paragraph 74 of Defendants' Answer. 12. Plaintiffs Steve and Barbara Smith state that the Standards of Identify contained in Titles 7 and 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations and incorporated by 1 NYCRR section 17.18(a) speak for themselves. Plaintiffs Steve and Barbara Smith further state that these standards of identify apply only to pasteurized milk and since they do not pasteurize their milk, Titles 7 and 21 and 1 NYCRR 17.18(a) do not apply to them. In all 3

other respects, Plaintiffs Steve and Barbara Smith deny the allegations contained in paragraph 75 of Defendants' Answer. 13. Plaintiffs Steve and Barbara Smith admit that they manufacture and produce only raw milk and raw dairy products. In all other respects, Plaintiffs Steve and Barbara Smith deny the allegations contained in paragraph 76 of Defendants Answer. 14. Plaintiffs Steve and Barbara Smith admit that they manufacture and produce raw milk and raw dairy products. Further, Plaintiffs Steve and Barbara Smith state that A&ML Sections 199-a(1) and 201(7) apply only to pasteurized milk, and since they manufacture and produce only raw milk and raw dairy products these Sections do not apply to them. In all other respects, Plaintiffs Steve and Barbara Smith deny the allegations contained in paragraph 77 of Defendants Answer. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the following relief on Defendants counterclaims 1.) That Defendants counter claims be dismissed in their entirety; 2.) That Plaintiffs be awarded costs and attorneys fees; 3.) That the Court grant Plaintiffs all other necessary and appropriate relief. Respectfully submitted, LANE, ALTON & HORST LLC David G. Cox (OH Sup. Ct. No. 0042724) Two Miranova Place, Suite 500 Columbus, OH 43215-7052 Phone 614-228-6885 Fax 614-228-0146 dcox@lanealton.com Trial Attorneys of Record for Plaintiffs Sam C. Bonney 20 West Main Street 4

P.O. Box 316 Waterloo, NY 13165 Phone 315-539-9211 Local Counsel for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was served by regular U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on this 16 th day of May, 2008, to the following Larry A. Swartz Associate Attorney State of New York Department of Agriculture and Markets 10B Airline Drive Albany, NY 12235 Attorney for Defendants David G. Cox (OH Sup. Ct. No. 0042724) 5