Four in One Company, Inc. v. SK Foods, L.P. et al

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 01/27/09 GRANTING 15 Stipulation Regarding Response To Complaint Pending Consolidation of Related Cases. IT IS ORDERED that the deadline for Defendant to respond to the Complaint shall be extended un til the earlier of the following 2 dates: 1) 30 days after filing of a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Tomato Antitrust Cases; or 2) 30 days after Plaintiff provides written notice to Defendant that it does not intend to file a Consolicated Amended Complaint.(Streeter, J)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Bingham McCutchen LLP STEPHEN ZOVICKIAN (SBN 78697) [e-mail] HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. (SBN 172732) [e-mail] RIANNE E. ROCCA (SBN 221640) [e-mail] KYLE ZIPES (SBN 251814) [e-mail] ABIGAIL SLONECKER (SBN 252452) [e-mail] Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415.393.2286 Attorneys for Defendant Ingomar Packing Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FOUR IN ONE COMPANY, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SK FOODS, L.P., INGOMAR PACKING COMPANY, LOS GATOS TOMATO PRODUCTS, RANDALL RAHAL, INTRAMARK USA, INC., Defendants.

CASE NO.: 2:08-cv-03017-MCE-EFB STIPULATION REGARDING RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT PENDING CONSOLIDATION OF RELATED CASES

Plaintiff Four in One Company, Inc. ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Ingomar Packing Company ("Defendant"), by and through their counsel of record, hereby submit this Stipulation Regarding Response To Complaint Pending Consolidation of Related Cases. WHEREAS Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the above-captioned case on or about December 12, 2008;

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
States;

WHEREAS Plaintiff alleges price fixing of processed tomato products sold in the United

WHEREAS this is the first extension requested by Plaintiff and Defendant in this action; WHEREAS other private plaintiffs have filed other complaints in the Eastern District of California based on the same or similar allegations and naming some or all of the same defendants (collectively "the Tomato Antitrust Cases"); WHEREAS a motion has been filed to consolidate all of the Tomato Antitrust Cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a); WHEREAS the parties anticipate that the cases will be consolidated, and there will be a single master consolidated amended complaint; WHEREAS the parties have agreed that an orderly schedule for any response to the pleadings, allowing for the consolidation of cases, would be more efficient for the parties and for the Court; WHEREAS Plaintiff agrees that the deadline for Defendant to respond to the Complaint should be extended until the earlier of the following two dates: (1) thirty days (30) after the filing of a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Tomato Antitrust Cases; or (2) thirty days (30) after Plaintiff provides written notice to Defendant that it does not intend to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint; WHEREAS Defendant agrees that the defense counsel identified below will accept service on behalf of its client of all complaints in this matter, including any amended or consolidated complaints, and that Defendant shall not contest the sufficiency of process or service of process; provided, however, that this Stipulation does not constitute a waiver of any other defense, including but not limited to the defense of lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction or improper venue; and WHEREAS Plaintiff and Defendant agree that notwithstanding the above paragraphs, should Defendant respond to a complaint in another of the Tomato Antitrust Cases prior to the date contemplated by this Stipulation, then Defendant shall make a simultaneous response to the
2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

complaint in the above-captioned matter and, should Defendant respond or undertake to respond to discovery or otherwise engage in facilitation of case management in another of the Tomato Antitrust Cases prior to the date contemplated by this Stipulation, then Defendant shall engage in similar discovery or case management activity in this case. THEREFORE, PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT, BY AND THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD, HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The deadline for Defendant to respond to the Complaint shall be extended until

the earlier of the following two dates: (1) thirty days (30) after the filing of a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Tomato Antitrust Cases; or (2) thirty days (30) after Plaintiff provides written notice to Defendant that it does not intend to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint. 2. The defense counsel identified below shall accept service on behalf of its client of

all complaints in this matter, including any amended or consolidated complaints, and Defendant shall not contest the sufficiency of process or service of process; provided, however, that by entering into this Stipulation Defendant does not waive any other defense, including but not limited to the defense of lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction or improper venue. 3. Plaintiff and Defendant agree that notwithstanding the above paragraphs, should

Defendant respond to a complaint in another of the Tomato Antitrust Cases prior to the date contemplated by this Stipulation, then Defendant shall make a simultaneous response to the complaint in the above-captioned matter and, should Defendant respond or undertake to respond to discovery or otherwise engage in facilitation of case management in another of the Tomato Antitrust Cases prior to the date contemplated by this Stipulation, then Defendant shall engage in similar discovery or case management activity in this case. //// //// //// ////
3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: January 26, 2009 Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP

By: _/s/ J.D. Horton_(as authorized on 1/26/09) J.D. Horton, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff FOUR IN ONE COMPANY, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated

DATED: January 26, 2009 Bingham McCutchen LLP

By: /s/ Steve Zovickian __________________ Steve Zovickian, Esq. Attorneys for Defendant INGOMAR PACKING COMPANY ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2009 ________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4