USA v. M Curti & Sons, et al, No. 1:1993cv05042 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM CONSENT DECREE OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION (Doc. 13) signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on September 17, 2015. (Munoz, I)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 8 1:93-cv-005042 LJO GSA Plaintiff, 9 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM CONSENT DECREE OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION (Doc. 13) v. 10 CURTIMADE DAIRY, INC., a corporation, and BENJAMIN A. CURTI, and individual, 11 Defendants. 12 13 On August 20, 1993, this Court ordered Defendants M. Curti & Sons, Inc.1, a corporation, and 14 15 Benjamin A. Curti (collectively, “Defendants”) subject to the terms and conditions of a Consent Decree 16 of Permanent Injunction (“Consent Decree”), which, among other things, rendered Defendants subject to 17 Food and Drug Administration inspections of Defendants’ operations. Doc. 10; Doc. 13-2, Ex. A. The 18 Consent Decree contained a provision permitting Defendants to petition the Court to modify or vacate 19 the injunction eighteen (18) months from the date of Defendants’ last violation. Doc. 13-2, Ex. A at 5. 20 Defendants make such a motion now, invoking Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5)(permitting relief from judgment 21 where it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application), arguing that it is 22 no longer equitable for the injunction to persist in this case because, for more than the required 18 23 months, there have been no violations at the facility. Curti Decl. at ¶ 7. The United States, the Plaintiff in 24 25 1 The original Defendant M. Curti & Sons, Inc. has ceased to exist; the dairy facility subject to the Consent Decree is owed and operated by Curtimade Dairy, Inc. and managed by Benjamin A. Curti. See Declaration of Benjamin Curti (“Curti Decl.”), Doc. 13-4, at ¶¶ 3, 5. 1 1 this action, has indicated it does not object to relieving Defendants from the conditions of the Consent 2 Decree. Doc. 17. 3 Having reviewed the entire record, and in light of Plaintiff’s non-opposition, the Court: 4 (1) concludes it is appropriate to rule on the pending motion without oral argument pursuant to 5 6 7 Local Rule 230(g); (2) directs the Clerk of Court to VACATE the hearing on the motion, currently set for September 25, 2015; 8 (3) GRANTS Defendants’ motion for relief from the Consent Decree; and 9 (4) VACATES the injunction. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill September 17, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.