no decision in an attempt by the
successful defendants in a civil suit
filed against a Berlin farm family and
Perdue over alleged pollution viola-
tions to recoup roughly $3 million in
legal fees from their opponents.
testimony from both sides in the
landmark Clean Water Act case in-
volving Berlin's Hudson Farm and
Perdue and the Waterkeeper Alli-
ance, an environmental advocacy
group that alleged the defendants
allowed runoff from the Berlin farm
feed the Pocomoke River and ulti-
mately the Chesapeake Bay. Last
December, the court ruled in favor
of the Hudsons and Perdue after a
10-day trial and the plaintiffs are
now seeking reimbursement of the
roughly $3 million in legal fees and
other expenses used to defend the
case.
afternoon, Nickerson did not make
an immediate ruling and instead put
the case in "sub curia." Sub curia is
a Latin term which literally means
"under law." A court will often hold a
matter under consideration awaiting
some other important step, such as
the filing of a document or the writ-
able prescribed for a ruling in the
case under sub curia and the judge
is likely forming a careful opinion
after hearing testimony.
with the Assateague Coastal Trust
and the Assateague Coastkeeper,
filed suit in U.S. District Court a-
gainst Perdue and Berlin's Hudson
Farm after sampling in ditches adja-
cent to the property revealed high
levels of harmful fecal coliform and
E. coli in concentrations that violat-
ed the Clean Water Act.
vor of the defendants Perdue and
Alan Hudson, opining the Water-
keeper Alliance was not successful
in proving a Clean Water Act viola-
tion. Buoyed by their victory, Perdue
and the Hudsons in January filed a
motion to recover a combined $3
million in legal fees and other costs
associated with successfully de-
fending the landmark case, asserting
the plaintiffs continued to push for-
ward with the litigation even after it
appeared its position was untenable.
court to deny the defendants' re-
quest for the recovery of legal fees,
pointing out that just because it ulti-
mately lost the case did not prove
its pursuit was somehow frivolous
and, therefore, subject to an award
of legal fees.
ed in admissible evidence and ex-
pert testimony and was not frivo-
lous, unreasonable or groundless,"
the motion read. "Contrary to the
defendants' claims, the plaintiff initi-
ated this litigation based on accu-
rate findings of high levels of pollu-
tants leaving the Hudson property
and sought relief to stop the runoff
of those pollutants."
Waterkeeper Alliance's relentless
attack on the poultry giant and the
Berlin farm continued even after it
became apparent the plaintiff had
failed to prove a Clean Water Act
violation.
court's characterization of their ac-
tions as `not responsible' and that
Perdue should be `commended, not
condemned,' we are fully justified in
in asking the court to grant us reim-
bursement for the cost of defending
ourselves," said Perdue Farms
General Counsel Herb Frerichs.
Ocean City taxi cab driver is enti-
tled to monetary damages award-
ed to her following an accident on
Coastal Highway in 2008, over-
turning the Court of Special
Appeals' decision that an issue
with the reading of the jury verdict
nullified the award of damages.
making a left turn at a stop light
with a green arrow when a vehicle
driven by Direse Hastings, who
was driving the opposite direction,
the taxi. The cab driver was not
injured, although her vehicle sus-
tained significant damage and
was taken out of service for a con-
siderable amount of time during
the height of the summer season.
seeking damages against Hast-
ings for negligence and assault.
After hearing testimony at trial,
the jury was given two verdict
sheets before deliberating, one
for the alleged negligence and
one for the alleged assault. After
deliberating for nearly two hours,
the jury returned and its verdicts
Serving The Community For Over 24 Years