Court Rules on Preliminary Objections in Luzerne County CAFO Case

Written by M. Sean High

On October 29, 2015, in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Pennsylvania, a ruling was rendered regarding Country View Family Farms, LLC’s preliminary objections in a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) case involving a Salem Township pig farm.

The legal action in question originated from an April 27, 2015 complaint filed by multiple Salem Township residents seeking relief from the operation of a neighboring CAFO.  In their complaint, 90 individual plaintiffs collectively stated that “foul-smelling odors particulate matter, harmful chemical compounds, pathogens, other hazardous substances, and in some cases flies, generated at Defendants’ CAFO and the spreading of swine manure and urine, have intermittently and frequently escaped and continue to escape form Defendants’ CAFO  and the spreading fields and invade Plaintiffs’ properties, and thus have and continue to substantially impaired Plaintiffs’ use and quiet enjoyment of their properties, and caused substantial annoyance, inconvenience and discomfort and property devaluation.”

Defendant Country View Family Farms, LLC countered Plaintiffs’ allegations by filing seven preliminary objections to the complaint.  According to Defendant’s brief in support of the preliminary objections: 1) Plaintiffs’ nuisance claim (both public and private) was legally and factually insufficient; 2) allegations concerning harm to nearby schools, a hospital, a retirement village and Thompson’s Run Creek should be stricken; 3) allegations concerning potential violation of a Salem Township zoning ordinance should be stricken; 4) Plaintiffs’ trespass claim was legally and factually insufficient; 5) Plaintiffs’ potential claim for negligence was improperly pleaded and legally insufficient; 6) demand for punitive damages should be stricken; and 7) the demand for diminution in value damages should be stricken.

With only one partial exception, the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County agreed with Country View Family Farms, LLC and ruled in favor of all seven of Defendant’s preliminary objections.  The lone exception concerned Country View Family Farms, LLC’s preliminary objection to Plaintiffs’ nuisance claim. Specifically, though the Court agreed with Country View Family Farms, LLC that Plaintiffs “public nuisance” claim should be stricken, the Court also ruled that Plaintiffs’ claim of “private nuisance” could proceed with the added requirement that within 45 days of the Order, Plaintiffs must submit an amended complaint “delineat[ing] with the requisite specificity the alleged injury” suffered by each one of the 90 individual plaintiffs. 

Court Finds that Florida Hog Farmer is Entitled to Compensation from the State as a Result of the Gestation Crate Ban

On July 24, 2013, a Florida appeals court affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Stephen Basford of Basford Farms was owed $505,000 plus interest for a taking of certain improvements on his real property by the State of Florida as a result of the “Pregnant Pig Amendment.”

The Pregnant Pig Amendment (Article X, section 21 of the Florida Constitution) was enacted in 2008 after voters approved the Amendment in 2002. The Amendment makes it illegal to confine a pig during pregnancy in an enclosure, or tether a pig during pregnancy, on a farm, in a way that prevents the pig from turning around freely. Basford, one of two mass pork producers who used gestation crates in Florida, claimed that he had to shut down his operation in 2003 after the passage of the Amendment. He stated that he could no longer operate his business and compete with other producers who were not restricted from using gestation crates. Basford sold for salvage value all of his gestation and farrowing crates and other materials used in his operation, stating that it would have cost him $600,000 to convert his hog farming operation to conform to the new law.

The lower court concluded that a taking by the State occurred when the law went into effect on November 5, 2008 and that Basford was entitled to the fair market value of the improvements to his real property valued at the time of the taking less the salvage value totaling $505,000 plus interest. The appeals court affirmed when the taking occurred because the statute of limitations did not begin to accrue until the Amendment went into effect in 2008, therefore not expiring before Basford filed suit. The appeals court also affirmed the Final Judgment that an as-applied taking occurred because, as shown through the lower court’s fact-finding process, there was a loss of value as a result of the Amendment.

For the full opinion, please see the Florida State Court’s website.

Written by Sarah Doyle - Research Assistant
The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
@PSUAgLawCenter
August 1, 2013