Legal Opinion
CITY OF CLINTON, ARK. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.
District Court, N.D. Texas
Decided September 15, 2009No. 3:09-xc-00386PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
TERRY R. MEANS, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (doc. #20) filed by defendant Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (“Pilgrim’s”). After review, the Court concludes that plaintiff City of Clinton, Arkansas (“the City”), does not have standing to pursue claims under § 192(a), (b), and (e) of the Packers & Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. § 181, et seq (“PSA”). The Court further concludes that the City’s complaint fails to state a claim for promissory estoppel or fraud. Consequently, Pilgrim’s motion to dismiss will be granted.
I. Background
Pilgrim’s…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.Supreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Rubin v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1982
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Board of Trustees v. Kern (In re Kern)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · 2017
- Clinton Growers v. Pilgrims Pride CorporatiCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2013
- Ubriaco v. Martino (In Re Martino)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · 2010
- Doyle v. County of SuffolkDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2025