text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, E.D
August 28, 1985
THE NORTHERN TRUST COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,v.L.A. MULLER, DEFENDANT.
This Court's April 25, 1985 memorandum opinion and order
(the "Opinion") suggested
the possible liability of the lawyers for L.A. Muller
("Muller"), under either or both of Fed.R.Civ.P. ("Rule") 11
and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 ("Section 1927"), for a portion of the
attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by Northern Trust Company
("Northern") in this action.*fn1 In response Northern
petitioned for its fees and expenses (in part against Muller
and in part against the lawyers), and one of Muller's lawyers —
Thomas Wilson Waters ("Waters") — replied.
This Court has previously deferred its ruling on the motion
because it was aware our Court of Appeals had in the works one
or more cases posing the question of the proper interpretation
of Rule 11 as amended in 1983. Now the Court of Appeals has
spoken in Rodgers v. Lincoln Towing, Inc., 771 F.2d 194, 204-05
(7th Cir. 1985) and just last week in Frazier v. Cast,
771 F.2d 259, 263 (7th Cir. 1985), both times confirming the same
reading of Rule 11 earlier suggested by this Court in the
Opinion and elsewhere.*fn2 Accordingly the issue is ripe for
Northern's petition has been modest. It distinguishes
carefully among its counsel's various services:
1. Muller but not his lawyers is sought to be
made responsible for $2,703 attributable to
preparation of the Complaint.
2. Miscellaneous expenses of $1,305.75
(including a skip tracer hired because Muller was
evading service) are also sought to be attributed
to Muller and not to his lawyers.
3. Northern's summary judgment motion, forced
to be pursued because of the baseless (and
bootless) arguments advanced by Muller and his
lawyers and rejected in the Opinion, cost
Northern $6,633.05. That expense is asked to be
charged against Muller and his lawyers jointly
and severally.
First Waters observes accurately that Rule 11 by its terms
applies only to him as the signer of the offending documents,
not to the firm of Morrissey and Kay. This Court need not
decide whether, under the realities of law firm practice, any
room exists for reading Rule 11 more expansively than its
individualized language, so as to extend liability to the firm
as well as to the individual signer.*fn3 If no such room
exists, any recovery from Morrissey and Kay must look to the
provisions of Section 1927 (which has been applied by the
courts to impose liability on all counsel for a litigant).
On that score our Court of Appeals has also recently
departed from its prior strict reading of Section 1927,
applying to counsel's conduct an objective test rather than
one of purely subjective bad faith. As In re TCI, Limited,
769 F.2d 441, 445 (7th Cir. 1985) put it (citations omitted):
"Bad faith" sounds like a subjective inquiry, and
this is probably why Judge Hertz looked for
evidence of "malice" on White's part. Despite its
sound, however, "bad faith" has an objective
meaning as well as a subjective one. . . . A
lawyer has a duty, which the recent amendment to
Rule 11 emphasizes, to limit litigation to
contentions "well grounded in fact and . . .
warranted by existing law or a good faith
argument for the extension, modification, or
reversal of existing law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. If a
lawyer pursues a path that a reasonably careful
attorney would have known, after appropriate
inquiry, to be unsound, the conduct is
objectively unreasonable and vexatious. To put
this a little differently, a lawyer engages in
bad faith by acting recklessly or with
indifference to the law, as well as by acting in
the teeth of what he knows to be the law. Our
court has long treated reckless and intentional
conduct as similar, . . . . A lawyer's reckless
indifference to the law may impose substantial
costs on the adverse party. Section 1927 permits
a court to insist that the attorney bear the
costs of his own lack of care.
All the circumstances here strongly call Section 1927, as so
read, into play. Indeed in many ways Section 1927 fits
counsel's conduct better than Rule 11. Northern's Petition at
4 is accurate in stating:
Prior to Northern's attorneys' initiation of any
work on summary judgment, this Court suggested to
Muller's counsel during the several status
hearings that Muller's arguments were groundless.
Muller's attorneys nevertheless persisted in
defending the action on patently frivolous
grounds. As a result, Northern was forced to go
to the expense of obtaining summary judgment.
Though Waters asserts reasons for putting Northern to its
proof under Rule 56, not one of those items need have taken
more than a few minutes' conversation between counsel — each
acting in good faith to resolve the issue of Muller's
unquestioned liability. Instead Muller's counsel forced
Northern to the time-consuming and expensive summary judgment
route. Waters' current arguments are cut from the same cloth as
those found without merit — or worse — in the Opinion.
Accordingly this Court orders payment of the following
amounts in addition to the full face amount of the Collateral
1. $4,008.75 to be paid by Muller individually;
2. $6,633.05 to be paid by Muller, Waters and
Morrissey and Kay or any of them (such liability
to be joint and several).
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Clue: "Button it!"
We have 2 answers for the clue "Button it!". See the results below.
Possible Answers:
Related Clues:
- "Zip it"
- "Quiet!"
- Library admonition
- ''Be quiet!''
- "Be quiet!"
- "C'mon, I'm trying to concentrate!"
- 'Zip your lip!'
- Library warning
- "You're scaring the fish, dude!"
Last Seen In:
- King Syndicate - Premier Sunday - June 16, 2013
- New York Times - July 09, 1997
Found an answer for the clue "Button it!" that we don't have? Then please submit it to us so we can make the clue database even better!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
It is sad to report that this community unfortunately has been greatly affected by the current flooding of Lake Baringo. To our surprise the community dispensary and maternity wing has been covered by water to the top and currently there is no temporary structure to be used as the dispensary and unfortunately they did not manage to save anything from the dispensary therefore worsening the situation. This is a great concern as now community health is not guaranteed. On the other hand many have been displace and most of their belongings washed away by the floods. We have not lost hope and we are focusing on supporting them and encouraging them to rise up again and carry on and encouraging the community health worker to play a big role in assisting in every way possible. Most of their projects have been affected including their kitchen gardens leaving them with little or no hope. It is too sad because in our previous report we were optimistic that this year they won't be affected as the campaign to save the Molo River was being done but unfortunately it was not enough and the rains persisted. We have organized meetings with the affected community to plan on the way forward together and we have agreed health worker should be there for the community despite all the challenges they are currently facing. We are optimistic that our well-wishers together with our government will come to rescue and save this community we will continue with our initiatives and restart those affected by the floods to ensure that the community rises up again. We thank you for this far and your continued support toward Kokwa community's health needs and we invite you to join us once more as we continue to support them.
Project Reports on GlobalGiving are posted directly to globalgiving.org by Project Leaders as they are completed, generally every 3-4 months. To protect the integrity of these documents, GlobalGiving does not alter them; therefore you may find some language or formatting issues.
If you donate to this project or have donated to this project, you will get an e-mail when this project posts a report. You can also subscribe for reports via e-mail without donating.
We'll only email you new reports and updates about this project.
Help raise money for this important cause by creating a personalized fundraising page for this project.Start a Fundraiser


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
April 1, 2011
MICHAEL CHAVEZ, PLAINTIFF,v.JAMES YATES, ET AL.,DEFENDANTS.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Doc.9)THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE
Findings and Recommendations Following Screening of Amended Complaint
I. Screening Requirement and Standard
Plaintiff Michael Chavez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")) on June 19, 2009. On December 16, 2009, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint, with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed January 25, 2010.
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice," Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007)), and courts "are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences," Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.
To state a claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendantpersonally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Id. at 1949. This requires the presentation of factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
II. Plaintiff's Claims
A. Summary of Amended Complaint
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP), where the events at issue in this action occurred. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Doctors Howard Ehrman, Felix Igbinosa, Kushner, and John Diep; Hayden, a registered nurse; Associate Warden John Ahlin; Captain Pineda; and Warden James Yates violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the ADA by failing to ensure that he received appropriate medical care.*fn1 Plaintiff seeks damages, unspecified equitable relief, and an order requiring the prison to stop staging fights between gang members because it interferes with his ability to obtain medical care.
Plaintiff offers the following facts in support of his claims that his rights were violated. Plaintiff slipped and fell at Ironwood State Prison in 2003, injuring himself, and he had carpal tunnel surgery on March 21, 2003. Plaintiff was transferred to PVSP on April 29, 2003, where his New Balance orthopedic shoes were confiscated by custody staff, making it hard for Plaintiff to walk without severe pain. (Doc. 9, Amend. Comp., court record pp. 3-4.) Plaintiff was not seen by medical staff until May 7, 2003, during which time he was without the pain medication he had been prescribed following his wrist surgery. When Plaintiff was seen, he requested to see a podiatrist to have his shoes replaced, but his request was denied by Defendant Kusher. Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal and prison officials acknowledged that custody staff needed to be trained on how to deal with inmates protected under the Armstrong remedial plan.*fn2
Plaintiff also alleges that he arrived at PVSP with twenty-two medical chronos, but only five of the twenty-two were renewed by PVSP staff. One of the chronos that was not renewed stated Plaintiff could not be handcuffed behind his back due to his medical condition.
Between May 7, 2003, and August 14, 2003, medical staff, including Defendant Kushner, denied Plaintiff his "basic fundamental" right to be free of pain and suffering. (Id., p. 5.) On August 29, 2003, Dr. Jeffery L. Tanji of UC Davis informed medical staff via a tele-med conference that Plaintiff needed hand therapy and pain medication, but staff failed to fulfil the orders, leaving Plaintiff to suffer in pain.
On November 4, 2003, Plaintiff requested to be seen for back and knee pain, but Dr. Neubarth denied him any further consultations with an orthopedic specialist.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Ehrman and Kushner and Doctors Neubarth and Salazar violated his right to receive adequate medical care. Plaintiff also alleges that his inmate appeals demonstrate that medical staff members were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and his appeals set forth sufficient facts to support plausible claims for relief under section 1983.*fn3
B. Eighth Amendment Medical Care Claims
1. Legal Standard
Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of Plaintiff's constitutional or other federal rights by persons acting under color of state law. Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir 2009); Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir. 2006); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). To state a claim, Plaintiff must demonstrate that each defendantpersonally participated in the deprivation of his rights. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; Simmons v. Navajo County, Ariz., 609 F.3d 1011, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2010); Ewing v. City of Stockton, 588 F.3d 1218, 1235 (9th Cir. 2009); Jones, 297 F.3d at 934.
Further, liability may not be imposed under section 1983 against supervisory personnel for the actions or omissions of their subordinates under the theory of respondeatsuperior. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948-49; Simmons, 609 F.3d at 1020-21; Ewing, 588 F.3d at 1235; Jones, 297 F.3d at 934. Supervisors may be held liable only if they "participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them." Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Starr v. Baca, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 09-55233, 2011 WL 477094, at *4-5 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2011); Corales v. Bennett, 567 F.3d 554, 570 (9th Cir. 2009); Preschooler II v. Clark County School Board of Trustees, 479 F.3d 1175, 1182 (9th Cir. 2007); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir. 1997).
To constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, prison conditions must involve "the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392 (1981). A prisoner's claim of inadequate medical care does not rise to the level of an Eighth Amendment violation unless (1) "the prison official deprived the prisoner of the 'minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,'" and (2) "the prison official 'acted with deliberate indifference in doing so.'" Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2004)(quoting Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 744 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted)). A prison official does not act in a deliberately indifferent manner unless the official "knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety." Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994).
2. Discussion
Plaintiff asserts multiple Eighth Amendment claims arising out of the failure of staff to provide him with appropriate medical care. The claims are based on the confiscation of his orthopedic shoes, the lack of pain medication, the failure to renew all of his twenty-two medical chronos, the failure to provide him with hand therapy, and the failure to refer him to a podiatrist and an orthopedic specialist. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the inadequate care, he suffered the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.
The events which are identified by date occurred in 2003, suggesting that they are barred by the statute of limitations because Plaintiff had, at most, four years from time his claims accrued to file suit.*fn4 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §§ 335.1, 352.1 (West 2011); Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 955 (9th Cir. 2004); Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911, 914 (9th Cir. 1999). However, the Court does not reach that issue in light of the fact that Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to state any claims on the merits.
Neither Plaintiff's difference of opinion with medical staff, Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1344 (9th Cir. 1981), nor a disagreement between medical professionals over treatment, is sufficient to support a claim under section 1983, Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 242 (9th Cir. 1989). To state a viable claim, Plaintiff's allegations would have to show that the course of treatment the doctors chose was medically unacceptable under the circumstances and that they chose this course in conscious disregard of an excessive risk to Plaintiff's health. Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1986) (quotation marks and citations omitted). The facts pled do not make such a showing.
In addition, there are no facts to support a claim that other staff knowingly disregarded an excessive risk of harm to Plaintiff's health. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. The general allegations set forth in the amended complaint are insufficient to support any plausible claims for relief for violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court, therefore, recommends dismissal of the claims, with prejudice.
C. ADA Claim
Plaintiff's amended complaint sets forth one sentence alleging a violation of the ADA. Title II of the ADA "prohibit[s] discrimination on the basis of disability." Lovell v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2002). "To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) [he] is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) [he] was excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against with regard to a public entity's services, programs, or activities; and (3) such exclusion or discrimination was by reason of [his] disability." Lovell, 303 F.3d at 1052.
Although Plaintiff alleges that his rights under the ADA were violated, his factual allegations relate exclusively to the inadequacy of his medical care and not to any intentional discrimination against him based on a qualifying disability. The treatment, or lack of treatment, concerning a medical condition such as at issue here does not provide a basis upon which to impose liability under the ADA. Burger v. Bloomberg, 418 F.3d 882, 882 (8th Cir. 2005) (medical treatment decisions not a basis for RA or ADA claims); Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2005) (RA not intended to apply to medical treatment decisions); Fitzgerald v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 403 F.3d 1134, 1144 (10th Cir. 2005) (medical decisions not ordinarily within scope of ADA or RA); Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The ADA does not create a remedy for medical malpractice."). There are simply no facts pled in the complaint that suggest the possibility of a viable ADA claim and the Court recommends dismissal of the claim, with prejudice.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
Plaintiff's amended complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff was previously notified of the deficiencies in his Eighth Amendment claims, provided with the applicable legal standards, and granted the opportunity to amend. Because the same deficiencies plague the amended complaint and because there are no facts presented which would support an ADA claim, further leave to amend is not warranted. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000); Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that this action be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim.
These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Check in from 15h
Guennewig Hotel Stadtpalais: Find photos, reviews, information, amenities and compare prices for 4 stars hotels in Cologne, Germany.
Guennewig Hotel Stadtpalais offers modern 4-star accommodation in Cologne. Only a short stroll from Lanxess Arena, it provides modern rooms equipped with a flat-screen TV, a laptop safe and a mini bar.
Hotel description
The hotel has 113 rooms and has been recently refurbished. A fitness centre can be readily accessed by guests wishing to keep active while travelling.
Those staying at Günnewig Hotel Stadtpalais can enjoy the stylish rooms that feature a telephone and a TV. Bathrooms are stocked with necessities like a shower and a hair dryer.
Gunnewig Hotel Stadtpalais Cologne's restaurant is available for breakfast, lunch and dinner, offering guests a pleasant dining experience close to their room.
Places of interest near Guennewig Hotel Stadtpalais include Chemische Fabrik Kalk, Messe Koln and Kolntriangle. It is within a 20-minute stroll of Koln Messe/Deutz Railway Station and Koelnmesse Underground Station, which allows for easy access in and around Cologne.
Hotel features
Room Service, Restaurant, Mini Bar, Cable / Satellite TV, Hair Dryer, TV, Shower, En suite, Private Bathroom
Conference Room(s), Multilingual Staff, Wake-up Service, Laundry service
Fitness Room/Gym
Private Toilet
Availability and Prices
Booking Site
Room Type
Per room
Per night
Per night
Users who viewed Guennewig Hotel Stadtpalais also viewed these 4 stars Cologne hotels:
BEST WESTERN Premier Hotel Park Consul Koeln
Clevischer Ring 121, Cologne
Clevischer Ring 121, Cologne
Hopper Hotel St. Josef
Dreikonigenstr 1-3, Cologne
Dreikonigenstr 1-3, Cologne
Mauritius Hotel & Therme
Mauritiuskirchplatz 3-11, Cologne
Mauritiuskirchplatz 3-11, Cologne
Search hotels
based on


text:
Reviewed By Clay M (Goshen, AL) Reviewed for a 2015 Ford Edge —10/4/2016 8:58 AM
Great basket and easy to assemble
Reviewed By Carolyn R (POUGHKEEPSIE, NY) Reviewed for a 2014 Ford Focus —6/28/2016 5:30 AM
I have a 2014 Ford Focus ST hatchback. We were going on a road trip to a music festival and needed a little extra space. I don't have roof racks so I needed something that would work on a naked roof. This was the perfect solution. Bigger than I expected, we had trouble filling it. But it held up great. Made a bit of noise on the way down but we packed it better on the way back and there was very little or no noise. Overall an excellent value for the money.


text:
Short Courses
The School of Social Work & Social Policy provides a number of short courses which are geared towards:
- Social workers from pre-professional through to post-qualification stages in their professional training
- Members of the public who wish to develop their knowledge of contemporary social issues and problems
Overview of Short Courses
- Evening Courses - for more information, browse the brochure for evening courses (PDF, 557 KB) organised during the 2016/17 Michaelmas Term.
- Public Lectures - these events will be posted as news items on the School's home page and updated on the School's events page.
- Introductory Practice Teachers Workshop - for more information, see Practice Teacher page.


text:
Mint chocolate chip cake
You May Also Be Interested In
Comments (1)
Glendy on
I love chocolate mint ice cream and think this cake would turn out amazing. What kind of cake and size should be used? Homemade or store bought? Any flavor in particular? Thanks!
Login To Leave A Comment


text:
Here are links to answers to some Frequently Asked Questions
Click here for all our CSA Policies
How do I edit the contents of my Share?
Click here for instructions for making changes to the contents of your Share
How to I schedule a Delivery Hold?
Click here for instructions for placing a Delivery Hold
How do I change my Pick-up Location?
Click here for instructions for changing your Pick-up Location
How do I cancel my subscription?
Click here for our Cancelation Policy
How do I Donate my Share?
Click here for instructions for Donating your Share
(the instructions are contained within the ones about changing your Pick-up Location)
What boxes and containers does the Farm re-use?
See our Pick-up Protocol for answers – you need to scroll down toward the bottom to reach them.
We'll continue to update this page as often as we are able. In the meantime, answers to most of our members' Frequently Asked Questions can be found in our CSA Policies and our Pick-up Protocol. Please read these, then email the CSA office at firstname.lastname@example.com if you still have questions or need more clarification. Thank you!