Lori Ehde
The wheels of justice are grinding slowly in the lawsuit brought by Glenn, Mabel, Loren and Mark Overgaard against Chad and Scott Overgaard, Overgaard Pork.
Among the most notable developments in the past week, plaintiffs have indicated they will dismiss County Commissioner Bob Jarchow as a defendant in the case.
"This came about because the attorneys for the plaintiffs realized there was no evidence against Mr. Jarchow," said attorney Scott Anderson, Minneapolis.
Anderson represented Jarchow through the Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust, of which Rock County is a member.
"They indicated they would voluntarily dismiss him upon our request," Anderson said.
He said the other defendants named in the case also moved to have the lawsuit thrown out of court.
In addition to Overgaard Pork, those defendants include former Rock County Feedlot Officer John Burgers, Rock County Board of Commissioners and Schwartz Farms, which owns the animals Overgaard Pork raises.
Background
The lawsuit, filed March 19, 2002, alleges that the defendants conspired to help Chad and Scott wrongfully obtain a hog feedlot permit to build a 3,200-head hog setup about a half mile from Glenn’s property in the fall of 2001.
Glenn protested the permit throughout its process in the county.
The suit claims the defendants didn’t act according to law when permits for a feedlot were granted.
And beyond that, according to the suit, they falsified records, acted with conflicts of interest, engaged in inappropriate conduct and aided in polluting the plaintiffs’ land, air and water.
The county’s response has been that it acted properly in the permitting process and that the lawsuit has been "brought for an improper purpose."
The plaintiffs are suing for monetary damages exceeding $50,000, which is standard in state cases.
New information
Attorneys for the defendants have argued there’s no legal or factual basis for the claims.
Plaintiffs indicated last week they would voluntarily dismiss:
The conspiracy claim against all the defendants was dismissed for lack of evidence.
The RICO claim was also dismissed. It was brought based on the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, alleging there was some criminal activity afoot.
The MERA claim, brought based on the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, was also voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.
In letters sent last week, attorneys for all the defendants have moved for the court to enter judgment in their favor — to throw out the case.
The plaintiffs have also filed a motion for the courts to enter judgment in their favor.
Punitive damages
Meanwhile the four Overgaard plaintiffs have moved to amend their complaint to assert a punitive damage claim against their cousins, Chad and Scott Overgaard.
Such claims are typically meant to punish defendants beyond compensating plaintiffs in lawsuits.
Chad and Scott Overgaard’s attorney Larry Maloney, Minneapolis, has brought a counter motion, alleging that the motion to amend is brought in bad faith and without proper support, and is requesting an award for attorney’s fees for having to defend a frivolous motion.
Twists and turns such as these can add up to hefty legal costs on both sides, and sometimes the outcome is determined by which side runs out of money first.
To cover its legal expenses, the county submits claims to MCIT, Anderson said, but not all the defendants have that option.
"I feel really bad for Chad and Scott Overgaard. They’ve had to pay their own expenses all along," Anderson said.
"This isn’t necessarily my own opinion, but some people might believe that part of the purpose in bringing the lawsuit and all its amendments is to actually force young agricultural animal producers like Chad and Scott to go out of business."
Attorneys will exchange all paperwork and file documents in U.S. District Court, Minneapolis, in the next three to four weeks.
Judge Donovan Frank will likely hear arguments by mid May, but a judgment won’t likely be rendered for several months after that.
