A federal judge denied an emergency request from Idaho cattle ranchers Lynn and Glenn Rasmussen to require the J.R. Simplot Company to dispose of more than 700 cows allegedly contaminated by a phosphate slurry spill. The court found the Rasmussens did not show a likelihood of success on any legal claim that would support a preliminary injunction, a threshold requirement for such extraordinary relief.
The Rasmussens, seventh-generation ranchers from Grace, ID, filed suit after discovering a spill of phosphate slurry from Simplot’s 86-mile pipeline, which runs through the Rasmussens’ federal grazing allotments. The spill, which occurred between May and July 2023, allegedly exposed their cattle to heavy metals. According to court documents, tissue testing of euthanized cows revealed concerning levels of contaminants and organ damage, rendering the cattle unsaleable.
In their emergency motion, the Rasmussens sought a court order requiring Simplot to cover the cost of euthanizing and disposing of the animals, with the Idaho State Department of Agriculture facilitating the process. They also requested compensation for the value of the cattle and the cost of their care over the past two years.
Judge David C. Nye for the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho rejected the request, ruling the couple had “not brought forth a single cause of action or cited to any statute or case which gives the Court the authority to order Simplot to pay for the disposal of the cows.” Of the Rasmussens’ seven legal claims—including invoking the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), negligence, nuisance and trespass—none provided a basis for the emergency relief sought.
“The well-supported debate between the parties on what damage has been done both environmentally and to the Rasmussens’ cattle … make it next to impossible to determine, at this stage, whether the Rasmussens have a likelihood of success on the merits of any of their claims,” Nye wrote.
The court also denied the Rasmussens’ request for a writ of mandate under the All Writs Act, finding they had not demonstrated a “clear and indisputable right” to the relief or that no other remedies existed.
Recognizing the financial hardship facing the Rasmussens, however, the court ordered Simplot to bear the cost of preserving the animals for the duration of the litigation. “The denial of the instant motion does not leave the Rasmussens without any relief,” Nye noted, invoking a federal rule to shift the financial burden of discovery.
Simplot had previously indicated it was open to purchasing the cattle at fair market value. Although settlement negotiations are ongoing, the court emphasized that regardless of ownership, the animals must be maintained as evidence.
Simplot had argued that destroying the cattle would amount to spoliation of evidence, especially given conflicting test results over contamination. Nye agreed, warning that disposal before discovery would “prevent Simplot from gathering data necessary to defend itself from accusations that the cattle are contaminated.”
Finally, the court lifted the stay on pending motions, giving the Rasmussens 21 days from the June 30 order to respond to Simplot’s partial motion to dismiss and motion to strike.
On May 28, Simplot filed a memorandum in support of its partial motion to dismiss several claims brought by the Rasmussens, arguing that much of the ranchers’ lawsuit lacks legal merit or jurisdictional basis.
While the Rasmussens seek damages for loss of forage and water on their allotments and injunctive relief under CERCLA, Simplot argued those requests exceed what the law allows. “Natural resources damages and injunctive relief … are not cognizable claims available under CERCLA for private parties like Plaintiffs,” the company wrote, citing binding precedent that only government trustees may recover such damages.
Simplot also requested that the court dismiss claims for negligence per se, strict liability, trespass and Clean Water Act violations and strike all demands for punitive damages. Simplot asserted that the slurry is not classified as hazardous waste and that the cattle allotments where the spill occurred are federally owned, limiting the Rasmussens’ ability to sue for trespass or natural resource harm. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
