New developments in the BFAA’s attempt to intervene in the female farmer lawsuit. Now, Thomas Burrell and the BFAA wants a Court Order requiring a further extension of deadlines…
First, on May 2, 2013, the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association, Inc. (“BFAA”) filed their reply memorandum related to their Motion to Intervene in the female farmer discrimination case. The female farmer plaintiffs and the USDA opposed BFAA’s attempt to intervene.
In BFAA’s reply, it argues that the legal doctrine of res judicata does not apply and the Pigford judgment (settlement) cannot preclude BFAA’s claims in the female farmer case because BFAA was never a party to the Pigford case. Res Judicata precludes a party from re-litigating issues that have already been resolved via a final judgment.
Further, BFAA argues that female farmer class members would not be prejudiced by the timing of BFAA’s intervention because a new pretrial schedule would have to be set anyway and inclusion of BFAA would require more funding of the settlement to prevent dilution to the current class members. BFAA does not offer any ideas about where that extra funding would come from.
Second, BFAA moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the female farmers case, requesting that the Court require Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to direct the Hispanics and Female Farmers and Ranchers Claim Administrator to extend all filing deadlines, including resubmission deadlines by 60 days until July 1, 2013.
BFAA argues that it requires this order because some of its members are female and Hispanic and were not able to file by the March 25th deadline or the extended May 1st deadline.
Interestingly, the Court erroneously entered BFAA’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction on the Court docket but then removed the motion because BFAA has not yet been granted permission to intervene in the case and therefore has no legal standing to request a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction.