Pigford v. Veneman

District Court, District of Columbia

Pigford v. Veneman

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________ ) TIMOTHY PIGFORD et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 97-1978 (PLF) ) TOM VILSACK, Secretary, ) United States Department of Agriculture, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ ) ) CECIL BREWINGTON et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 98-1693 (PLF) ) TOM VILSACK, Secretary, ) United States Department of Agriculture, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ )

ORDER

For the reasons explained in the accompanying Opinion issued this same day,

it is hereby

ORDERED that the Wises’ Motion to Compel Written Consent to Op Out

[Dkt. 2002] is DENIED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Wises’ Motion for Contempt and to Enforce the

Pigford Consent Decree [Dkt. 2003] is DENIED; it is FURTHER ORDERED that the Wises’ Emergency Motion for Preliminary

Injunction Against Foreclosure [Dkt. 2006] is DENIED as moot; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Wises’ Emergency Motion for an Order on

Dkt. 2003 [Dkt. 2031] is DENIED as moot; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Wises’ Motion for a Declaratory Judgment

[Dkt. 2037] is DENIED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Bateses’ Motion [Dkt. 2017] is DENIED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Bateses’ Objection [Dkt. 2018] is DENIED; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Parker’s Motion for a Declaratory Judgment

[Dkt. 2040] is DENIED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that Cowtown’s Motion to Intervene and Freeze the

Remaining Funds [Dkt. 2048] is DENIED. This is a final appealable order. See FED. R. APP. P.

4(a).

SO ORDERED.

/s/_______________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN United States District Judge

DATE: September 15, 2016

2

Reference

Status
Published