Allied World National Assurance Co., et al. v. SK PM Corp. et al.

Filing 55

ORDER AFTER SCHEDULING CONFERENCE Signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 4/13/2011. Further Scheduling Conference set for 7/15/2011 at 8:15 a.m. in Courtroom 3. (Arellano, S.)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

ALLIED WORLD NATIONAL ASSURANCE
COMPANY, a New Hampshire
corporation, and ALLIED WORLD
ASSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.) INC., a
Delaware corporation,

)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
SK PM CORP., a California
)
corporation aka “S.K. Foods MP
)
Corp.,” SK FOODS, L.P., a
)
California limited partnership, )
FREDERICK SCOTT SALYER, an
)
individual, BLACKSTONE RANCH, a )
California corporation aka
)
“Blackstone Ranch Calif ‘S’
)
Corp.” LISA CRIST, an
)
individual, MARK MCCORMICK, an
)
individual, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

1:10-cv-1262 OWW JLT
ORDER AFTER SCHEDULING
CONFERENCE
Further Scheduling
Conference: 7/15/11 8:15
Ctrm. 3

22
23

I.

24
25
26
27
28

Date of Scheduling Conference.
April 13, 2011.

II.

Appearances Of Counsel.
Troutman Sanders LLP by Kevin F. Kieffer, Esq., appeared on

behalf of Plaintiffs.
Law Offices of David C. Winton by David C. Winton, Esq.,
1

1

appeared on behalf of Defendants Frederick Scott Salyer, SK PM

2

Corp. aka “S.K. Foods PM Corp.,” Blackstone Ranch aka “Blackstone

3

Ranch Calif ‘S’ Corp.,” Scott Salyer, individually and as

4

Trustee, Scott Salyer Revocable Trust, Robert Pruett, Trustee for

5

the Caroline Gazelle Salyer 1999 Irrevocable Trust, erroneously

6

sued as the Caroline Gazelle Salyer Irrevocable Trust, Robert

7

Pruett Trustee for the Caroline Gazelle Salyer 2007 Irrevocable

8

Trust, also erroneously sued as the Caroline Gazelle Salyer

9

Irrevocable Trust; Robert Pruett Trustee for the Stefanie Ann

10

Salyer 1999 Irrevocable Trust erroneously sued as the Stefanie

11

Ann Salyer Irrevocable Trust, Robert Pruett Trustee for the

12

Stefanie Ann Salyer 2007 Irrevocable Trust, erroneously sued as

13

the Stefanie Ann Salyer Irrevocable Trust; SS Farms, LLC, a

14

California limited liability company, SARS LLC, a California

15

limited liability company, CSSS LP, a California limited

16

partnership fictitiously doing business as Central Valley

17

Shippers; SK Foods LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; S.K.

18

Foods PM Corp., a legal entity of unknown legal capacity, SKF

19

Aviation, LLC, a California limited liability company, SSC

20

Farming, LLC, a California limited liability company, SSC Farms

21

I, LLC, a California limited liability company; SSC Farms II,

22

LLC, a California limited liability company; SSC Farms III, LLC,

23

a California limited liability company; SK Farm Services, LLC, a

24

California limited liability company; SK Frozen Foods, LLC, a

25

California limited liability company, Carmel Wine Merchants LLC,

26

a California limited liability company, Salyer American Fresh

27

Foods is in receivership and therefore Mr. Winton does not

28

represent that entity, nor does any other attorney represent that
2

1

entity in this lawsuit.

2

Defendant.

3

settlement with Plaintiffs and it is the expectation of the

4

parties that those entities will be dismissed from the lawsuit.

5

It is adverse though it is a named

Four Salyer American Cooling entities have reached a

Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP by Kathryn Richter,

6

Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendant Bradley D. Sharp, Chapter

7

11 Trustee for SK Foods LP and RHM Industrial/Specialty Foods,

8

Inc. dba Colusa County Canning Company (collectively referred to

9

as debtors).

10
11

III.

Summary of Pleadings.
A.

12

Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
1.

Plaintiffs have filed this action to obtain a

13

judicial determination and declaration regarding the parties’

14

rights and obligations with respect to two insurance policies.

15

Defendants are insureds under For Private Companies Policy No.

16

C011427/001 issued by Allied World to S.K. Foods PM Corp. for the

17

February 19, 2009 to August 17, 2009 Policy Period (the “Primary

18

Policy”).

19

certain specified coverage provisions of the Primary Policy due

20

to, among other things, misrepresentations and concealment of

21

material facts made by Defendants during the underwriting

22

process.

23

Through this action, Allied World seeks to rescind

2.

Defendants also sought excess coverage from AWAC

24

under Excess Directors & Officers Liability Insurance Following

25

Form Policy No. C011818/001, which was to be issued to S.K. Foods

26

PM Corp. for the April 8, 2009 to February 19, 2010 Policy Period

27

(the “Excess Policy”).

28

never paid the requisite premium for the Excess Policy.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants

3

AWAC

1

seeks a declaration that the Excess Policy was never effectively

2

issued or delivered as a result of the Defendants’ non-payment of

3

premium, and is inoperative.

4

certain specified coverage provisions of the Excess Policy due

5

to, among other things, the misrepresentations and concealment of

6

material facts made by Defendants during the underwriting

7

process.

8
9

3.

AWAC alternatively seeks to rescind

Plaintiffs allege that in connection with the

underwriting of the Primary and Excess Policies, Defendants,

10

through their insurance broker, provided Plaintiffs with

11

financial statements for the group of related agricultural

12

entities that were to be insured under the policies (collectively

13

referred to as “SK Foods Group”).

14

representations, including that SK Foods Group was in good

15

financial health and had strong revenues and profits for the

16

periods subsequent to those for which they provided financial

17

statements, that certain credit agreements necessary to SK Foods

18

Group’s operations that were set to expire would be extended, and

19

that Defendants did not anticipate a reorganization or sale of

20

more than 10% of the assets of any SK Foods Group entities.

21

Plaintiffs allege that these representations were false, and that

22

the financial statements submitted to Plaintiffs were inaccurate

23

and unreliable.

24

4.

Defendants also made certain

At the time that negotiations concerning the

25

Primary and Excess Policies were ongoing, the entities comprising

26

SK Foods Group were experiencing significant financial

27

difficulties, and many were either insolvent or on the brink of

28

insolvency.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants
4

1

were aware that the joint credit facilities for two of SK Foods

2

Group’s major constituents, SK Foods, L.P. (“SK Foods”) and RHM

3

Industrial/Specialty Foods, Inc. (“RHM”), would not be extended.

4

Plaintiffs are also informed and believe that Defendants

5

anticipated that it would be necessary for Salyer American Fresh

6

Foods, Inc. (“SAFF”), SK Foods, and RHM to reorganize, through

7

bankruptcy or otherwise, and sell substantially all of their

8

assets in order to satisfy debts owed by these companies.

9

5.

Had Plaintiffs known the truth regarding SK Foods

10

Group’s financial condition, they would not have issued the

11

Primary Policy, or agreed to issue the Excess Policy upon payment

12

of the requisite premium.

13

the policies, the California Insurance Code, including Insurance

14

Code Sections 331, 359, 447 and 650, and the California Civil

15

Code, including Civil Code Section 1691, Plaintiffs seek a

16

judgment of rescission declaring that certain coverage provisions

17

of the Primary and Excess Policies are void ab initio.

18

Primary and Excess Policies are not rescinded as requested,

19

Plaintiffs, in the alternative, seek to have the Primary and

20

Excess Policies reformed.

21

6.

Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of

If the

Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that Defendants

22

are liable to Plaintiffs for any payments made by Plaintiffs,

23

including any future payments, to or on behalf of any Insureds,

24

pursuant to Plaintiffs’ obligations under any remaining coverage

25

provisions of the Primary or Excess Policies on the grounds that

26

Plaintiffs would not have issued the Primary Policy or agreed to

27

issue the Excess Policy but for Defendants’ misrepresentation or

28

concealment of material facts in connection with their
5

1

application for the Primary and Excess Policies, and that such

2

payments are therefore damages resulting from Defendants’

3

misrepresentations.

4

B.

5

The Salyer Defendants’ Answer and Counterclaim.
1.

The Salyer Defendants deny that any

6

misrepresentations were made during the underwriting process an

7

deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they seek.

8
9

2.

The Salyer Defendants previously counterclaimed

against Plaintiffs for breach of contract, breach of the covenant

10

of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief.

11

about January 19, 2011, this Court ordered, pursuant to the

12

parties’ stipulation, that the counterclaim filed by the Salyer

13

Defendants was dismissed without prejudice.

14

parties’ stipulation and this Court’s Order, the Salyer

15

Defendants may refile their counterclaims up to 90 days prior to

16

the close of discovery.

17
18

C.

On or

Pursuant to the

The Trustee’s Answer and Counterclaim.
1.

The Trustee denies that any misrepresentations

19

were made during the underwriting process and denies that

20

Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief they seek.

21

2.

The Trustee previously counterclaimed against

22

Plaintiffs for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good

23

faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief.

24

January 24, 2011, this Court Ordered, pursuant to the parties’

25

stipulation, that the counterclaim filed by the Trustee was

26

dismissed without prejudice.

27

stipulation and this Court’s order, the Trustee may refile its

28

counterclaim up to 90 days prior to the close of discovery.

On or about

Pursuant to the parties’

6

1

IV.

2

Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.
1.

The parties do not anticipate amending the pleadings at

3

this time, except for corrections to specify the true names of

4

parties shall be made and IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

American Fresh Foods is in receivership.

6

Plaintiff intends to request the entry of default as to that

7

party.

8

days following the date of this hearing, on or before May 3,

9

2011.

10

V.

The entity Salyer

No party has appeared.

The request for entry of default shall be filed within 20

Factual Summary.

11

A.

Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

12

Proceedings.

13

1.

Allied World issued For Private Companies Policy

14

No. C011427/001 to S.K. Foods PM Corp. for the February 19, 2009

15

to August 17, 2010 Policy Period (the “Primary Policy”).

16

2.

The Primary Policy was initially issued with a

17

Policy Period of February 19, 2009 to February 19, 2010.

18

However, the Primary Policy was cancelled effective August 17,

19

2009 by First Insurance Funding Corp. (“First Insurance”), the

20

company that provided the Insureds with financing for the premium

21

of the Primary Policy.

22

3.

23
24

Whether that cancellation was effective is not

“uncontested.”
4.

SK Foods Group also sought an excess policy from

25

AWAC, specifically Excess Directors & Officers Liability

26

Insurance Following Form Policy No. C011818/001, which was to be

27

issued to S.K. Foods PM Corp. for the April 8, 2009 to February

28

19, 2010 Policy Period (the “Excess Policy”).
7

1

5.

As part of the underwriting process for the

2

Primary and Excess Policies, SK Foods Group, through its broker,

3

provided Plaintiffs with an application and other materials,

4

including audited and unaudited financial statements for certain

5

SK Foods Group entities.

6

6.

A representative of the broker, and SK Foods Group

7

executives also met with Plaintiffs’ underwriters at which the

8

financial health of SK Foods Group entities were the subject of

9

discussion.

10

B.

Contested Facts.

11

1.

12

the Defendants contest:

13

2.

14
15

Plaintiffs also allege the following facts, which

SK Foods Group failed to pay the requisite premium

to obtain the Excess Policy.
3.

At the time that negotiations concerning the

16

Primary and Excess Policies were ongoing, the entities comprising

17

SK Foods Group were experiencing significant financial

18

difficulties and many were either insolvent or on the brink of

19

insolvency.

20

facilities for two of SK Foods Group’s major constituents, SK

21

Foods, L.P. (“SK Foods”) and RHM Industrial/Specialty Foods, Inc.

22

(“RHM”), would not be renewed.

23

4.

Defendants were also aware that the joint credit

At the time that negotiations concerning the

24

Primary and Excess Policies were ongoing, Defendants anticipated

25

that it would be necessary for Salyer American Fresh Foods, Inc.

26

(“SAFF”), SK Foods, and RHM to reorganize, through bankruptcy or

27

otherwise, and sell substantially all of their assets in order to

28

satisfy debts owed by these companies.
8

1

5.

That Defendants made other misrepresentations and

2

concealed facts from Plaintiffs during the underwriting process

3

as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

4

6.

The Salyer Defendants assert that:

The Salyer

5

Entities contend that all material representations were made, the

6

Plaintiffs conducted a full and thorough investigation and

7

assumed a variety of risks which were thoroughly accounted for,

8

excluded, or for which premiums were charged and paid.

9

VI.

10

Legal Issues.
A.

11

Uncontested.
1.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action

12

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

13

between the parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds the

14

sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

15

2.

There is complete diversity

Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) since

16

a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the

17

claims at issue occurred in this District.

18

3.

The parties agree that in this diversity action,

19

the substantive law of the State of California provides the rule

20

of decision.

21

B.

22

Contested.

23

1.

Whether the Excess Policy was effectively issued

and delivered.

24

2.

Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to rescission or

25

reformation with respect to certain specified provisions in the

26

Primary and Excess Policies.

27
28

3.

Whether the August, 2009 cancellation was

effective.
9

1
2

4.

Whether the “anti rescission” clauses contained in

the policies preclude the relief sought.

3

5.

Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration

4

that Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for any payments made by

5

Plaintiffs, including any future payments, to or on behalf of any

6

Insureds, pursuant to Plaintiffs’ obligations under any remaining

7

coverage provisions of the Primary or Excess Policies.

8

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

9

1.

The parties have not consented to transfer the

10

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

11

VIII.

12

1.

Corporate Identification Statement.
Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

13

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

14

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

15

party's equity securities.

16

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

17

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

18

information.

19

IX.

20
21

A party shall file the statement with

Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.
A.

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Discovery Plan.
1.

As set forth below, the Salyer Defendants maintain

22

that discovery in this matter are or will be subject to

23

restrictions based on order(s) issued in connection with Scott

24

Salyer’s criminal proceedings, In re SK Foods, L.P. E.D. Bankr.

25

Case no. 09-29162-D-11 (E.D. Cal. Bankr.), presently before the

26

Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton in this Court, and other

27

purportedly related adversary proceedings.

28

Defendants have failed to explain how such order(s) would
10

However, the Salyer

1

preclude Plaintiffs, who are not parties to any of the

2

proceedings, from seeking discovery from the Defendants in the

3

present action.

4

certain discovery in this action, which Plaintiffs dispute, the

5

Salyer Defendants have failed to explain why this would support a

6

stay of all party discovery in this action.

7

2.

Furthermore, even if such order(s) did preclude

In addition, to the extent that the Salyer

8

Defendants are claiming that the discovery in this action will be

9

the same as the discovery in the adversary proceedings, they are

10

incorrect.

11

following topics:

12

a.

13

SK Foods and RHM’s negotiations with their

lender for the extension of their credit facilities in 2009;

14
15

Plaintiffs intend to take discovery regarding the

b.

The timing of SK Foods’ and RHM’s default on

their credit facilities;

16

c.

Defendants’ discovery of errors in the

17

financial statements they submitted to Allied World in connection

18

with the underwriting of the policies;

19

d.

When SAFF, SK Foods and RHM first anticipated

20

a reorganization or arrangement with creditors under federal or

21

state law or the sale, distribution or divestiture of their

22

respective assets other than in the ordinary course of business;

23
24

e.

The financial health of the Defendants during

the underwriting process for the Primary and Excess Policies;

25

f.

Defendants’ knowledge of circumstances that

26

could be expected to give rise to claims prior to the inception

27

of the Primary Policy and intended inception of the Excess

28

Policy.
11

1

3.

These topics are relevant to misrepresentation

2

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made during the

3

underwriting of the policies issued by Plaintiffs to Defendants.

4

Plaintiffs do not intend to take discovery relevant to the claims

5

made by the Trustee against the Salyer Defendants in the

6

adversary proceedings.

7

4.

It is Plaintiffs’ position that discovery should

8

proceed in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

9

and the Local Rules, including the limitations set forth therein,

10

subject to the right to seek relief from such limitations as may

11

be necessary and appropriate.

12

discovery request propounded by Plaintiffs or another party is

13

objectionable to the Salyer Defendants, they should make their

14

objection to that particular request.

15

dispute over the merit of any objection that the parties are

16

unable to resolve without the aid of the Court, the parties can

17

bring their dispute before the Court in an orderly fashion.

18

Salyer Defendants should not be permitted to obtain a blanket

19

prohibition on all party discovery.

20

5.

In the event that any particular

In the event there is a

The

In the event that any Defendants refile their

21

counterclaims, Plaintiffs will require discovery concerning the

22

bases for the Defendants’ claims for breach of contract and bad

23

faith, and the damages allegedly suffered by these Defendants.

24

It is Plaintiffs’ position that no discovery concerning the

25

Defendants’ dismissed claims is proper until such time as they

26

are refiled, if at all.

27

6.

28

Certain documents that may be produced or sought

in discovery may contain confidential or proprietary information.
12

1

Accordingly, the parties may apply to the court for a protective

2

order to protect such information, if necessary.

3

7.

Plaintiffs anticipate that electronic discovery

4

will be necessary in this matter.

5

produced in their native format.

6
7
8

8.

Electronic documents should be

Plaintiffs propose November 14, 2011 for the

discovery end-date.
B.

9

The Salyer Defendants’ Proposed Discovery Plan.
1.

It is the Salyer Defendants’ position that this

10

case is related to at least 14 other matters pending in this

11

District (the “Related Matters”).

12

specifically discussed in Item 12 below.

13

actions, some are adversary proceedings pending in the Bankruptcy

14

Division, at least one is a criminal matter (US v. Salyer, E.D.

15

Case no. 10-0061-LKK) and there is a Chapter 11 proceeding as

16

well.

17

These cases are more
Some of these are civil

(In re SK Foods, L.P. E.D. Bankr. Case no. 09-29162-D-11.)
2.

Several of these matters are subject to stays, of

18

either the entire action, or discovery, pending resolution of

19

Scott Salyer’s criminal proceedings.

20

Salyer Entities, Mr. Salyer is the only officer or director still

21

employed by the entity.

22

any corporate officer or director of a Salyer Entity is required

23

either to satisfy the entity’s discovery obligations, or to

24

testify at trial, Mr. Salyer will be subject to the same

25

restrictions.

26

3.

With regard to most of the

Thus, to the extent that testimony of

In addition, apparently, much of the documentary

27

discovery is also not currently available to the Salyer Entities

28

due to ongoing and unresolved discovery disputes in the
13

1

bankruptcy adversary proceedings.

2

Salyer entities and the Trustee have been litigating since the

3

beginning of the Chapter 11 case, and which remains unresolved.

4

(The undersigned counsel for the Salyer Entities is not involved

5

in that litigation in any capacity and is not fully informed

6

about those proceedings.)

7

other commissioners in this District, and there are already

8

existing orders applicable to the very same discovery and

9

evidence which will be relevant to this case.

10

4.

This is a subject which the

These matters have also come before

Thus, the Salyer Entities propose that third party

11

discovery go forward, but that the Court stay discovery against

12

the Salyer Entities and continue this Scheduling Conference until

13

June, 2011, so that the scope and applicability of the pending

14

discovery order in the criminal matter may be understood.

15

5.

If required, the Salyer Entities intend to file a

16

Motion to Stay Discovery in this action to the extent that such

17

discovery efforts would conflict with any other orders in any

18

other action.

19

C.

20

The Trustee’s Proposed Discovery Plan.
1.

The Trustee’s concern with regard to Plaintiffs’

21

discovery plan and schedule is that the Trustee is currently

22

involved in numerous Adversary Proceedings and other contested

23

matters in the main bankruptcy action involving the Salyer

24

Defendants, in which there have been and are numerous pending

25

appeals currently before the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton in

26

this Court, see Case nos. 2:10-cv-810; 2:10-cv-811; 2:10-cv-812,

27

2:10-cv-1492 [Docket No. 46], 2:10-cv-1493, 2:10-cv-1496, 2:10-

28

cv-1497, 2:10-cv-1498, 2:10-cv-1499, 2:10-cv-1500.
14

Several of

1

the appeals concern the Trustee’s ability to seek discovery from

2

Mr. Salyer.

3

but has indicated that he will not allow the Trustee to propound

4

discovery against Mr. Salyer personally.

5

prohibition on discovery is not yet known.

6

Judge Karlton to issue a ruling shortly.

7

2.

Judge Karlton has taken the matters under submission

The exact scope of the
The Trustee expects

Counsel for the Salyer Defendants has stated that

8

he intends to assert whatever ruling Judge Karlton issues will be

9

applicable in this case and will preclude the deposition of Scott

10

Salyer, who the Salyer Defendants assert is the person most

11

knowledgeable for each of the Salyer Defendant entities.

12

Salyer was also the owner and controlling manager of the debtors.

13

It should be noted that Judge Karlton recently rejected Scott

14

Salyer’s motion to stay discovery in a collateral matter, Bank of

15

the West v. Scott Salyer, et al., case no. M105340, pending in

16

the Superior Court for the State of California.

17

v. Salyer, 2:10-cr-0061-LKK, Docket no. 302].

18

himself may not be produced for or subject to deposition, it does

19

not appear that his testimony is either sought or required in

20

this matter.

21

issues and the Salyer parties’ efforts to delay the process,

22

which are likely to cause delay in the discovery process in this

23

case.

24

cut-off in November, 2011 would be appropriate, while affording

25

the parties the opportunity to have the Trustee’s settlement

26

approved and the plaintiff’s intended Motion for Summary Judgment

27

heard.

28

///

Mr.

[United States
While Scott Salyer

The Trustee foresees delays occasioned by these

For that reason, the Trustee believes that a discovery

15

1

D.

2

Trial and Pre-Trial Dates.
1.

Based on the parties’ inability to agree as to the

3

extent of scope and discovery, including privilege issues that

4

relate to Mr. Scott Salyer arising out of the pending criminal

5

proceedings against him, the parties will take three weeks,

6

through and including May 4, 2011 to see whether or not an

7

interim stipulation concerning the progress of some discovery not

8

requiring the testimony of Mr. Scott Salyer, can go forward.

9

2.

In the event the parties are unable to agree, the

10

Salyer Defendants will file a motion for stay of discovery or

11

other limits on discovery.

12

before May 31, 2011.

13

3.

That motion shall be filed on or

A Further Scheduling Conference in this case shall

14

be held July 15, 2011 at 8:15 a.m.

15

X.

16

Motions - Hard Copy.
1.

The parties shall submit one (1) courtesy paper copy to

17

the Court of any motions filed.

Exhibits shall be marked with

18

protruding numbered or lettered tabs so that the Court can easily

19

identify such exhibits.

20

XI.

Trial Date.

21

1.

This will be a jury trial.

22

2.

Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

23
24

a.
3.

Five to seven days.

Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

25

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285.

26

XII. Settlement Conference.

27
28

1.

The Plaintiffs have reached a settlement agreement with

Defendants Sawtooth Cooling, LLC, Salyer Western Cooling Company,
16

1

and Yuma American Cooling Corporation (the “Cooling Entities”).

2

The Plaintiffs anticipate filing a joint stipulation of dismissal

3

with the Cooling Entities shortly.

4

2.

The Plaintiffs have reached a settlement in principle

5

with Defendant Lisa Crist.

6

settlement with Defendant Crist will be finalized in the next two

7

weeks, and that Plaintiffs will file a notice of dismissal of

8

Defendant Lisa Crist shortly thereafter.

9

3.

Plaintiffs anticipate that the

The Plaintiffs and the Trustee have also reached a

10

settlement in principle, and will report the settlement to the

11

Court once it is finalized.

12

4.

Plaintiffs have been in discussions with Defendant Mark

13

McCormick regarding a potential resolution of this matter that

14

will not necessitate Plaintiffs serving Defendant McCormick.

15

this time, Plaintiffs do not believe that a mediation or

16

settlement conference will be necessary to resolve Plaintiffs’

17

claims against Defendant McCormick.

18

5.

At

The Plaintiffs and Salyer Defendants agree that after

19

initial discovery has been conducted, a mediation or settlement

20

conference may be appropriate.

21

XIII.

22
23

A.

Related Matters Pending.
Salyer Defendants’ Statement Regarding Related Matters.
1.

This case is related to at least 14 other cases

24

pending in one or another division of this Court, including the

25

Bankruptcy Division.

26

of Related Cases which will be filed prior to the Scheduling

27

Conference in the captioned matter.

28

as it was not entirely clear what the status of discovery in the

The Salyer Entities are preparing a Notice

17

This was not done previously

1

other cases was, nor whether these cases were actually related.

2

It appears now that they undoubtedly are.

3

2.

Most of these cases are subject to various forms

4

of orders limiting or completely staying discovery with regard to

5

F. Scott Salyer or any entity in which he would be compelled to

6

provide testimony in any representative capacity.

7

a defendant in a criminal matter pending before Judge Lawrence

8

Karlton in this District.

9

0061-LKK).

Mr. Salyer is

(United States v. Salyer, 2:10-cr-

Most of the related cases are either already subject

10

to some form of stay on discovery (e.g., Brewer v. Scott Salyer,

11

06-cv-01324 AWI DLB (E.D. Cal.) (six month stay of discovery

12

entered on 4/16/10; current status unknown); the subject of

13

pending motions by parties and non-parties alike (e.g., Four In

14

One Company, Inc., et al. v. SK Foods, LP, Scott Salyer, et al.,

15

078-cv-3017 MCE (Clayton Act/Sherman Act class action case in

16

which government intervened to stay discovery); or subject to

17

orders which have not been entered yet, but which are under

18

submission.

19

3.

A more complete catalog will be provided to the

20

Court prior to the Scheduling Conference to the extent possible,

21

but the undersigned counsel for the Salyer Defendants does not

22

represent these entities in the other actions, and has not been

23

involved in these discovery matters.

24

4.

Mr. Salyer is the only remaining officer or

25

director of most of the Salyer Entities.

26

will be necessary for these entities to conduct their defense.

27

Since he has invoked his Fifth Amendment privileges, he is

28

unavailable to testify.
18

Thus, his testimony

1

B.

Plaintiffs’ Statement Regarding Related Matters.

2

1.

Plaintiffs do not believe that any actions that it

3

is aware of are “related” as that term is used in Local Rule

4

123(a).

5

of Related Case filed by the Salyer Defendants.

6

XIV. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

7

Plaintiffs intend to respond appropriately to any Notice

1.

The Court requires compliance with the Federal

8

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

9

Eastern District of California.

To aid the court in the

10

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

11

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

12

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

13

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

14

XV.

15

Effect Of This Order.
1.

The foregoing order represents the best

16

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

17

to bring this case to resolution.

18

specifically reserved for this case.

19

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

20

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

21

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

22

subsequent scheduling conference.

23

2.

The trial date reserved is
If the parties determine at

Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

24

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

25

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

26

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

27

requested.

28

///
19

1
2

3.

Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:
April 13, 2011
emm0d6

/s/ Oliver W. Wanger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20