Edstrom et al v. Anheuser-Busch InBEV SA/NV et al

Filing 140

ORDER. Plaintiffs' request for oral argument is granted and the hearing on plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Judgment is scheduled for January 24, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 23, 2013. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2013)

5

Joseph M. Alioto (SBN 42680)
Theresa D. Moore (SBN 99978)
Thomas P. Pier (SBN 235740)
Jamie L. Miller (SBN 271452)
ALIOTO LAW FIRM
One Sansome Street, 35h Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

6

[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON LAST PAGE]

1
2
3
4

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
)
STEVEN EDSTROM, BARRY GINSBURG, )
)
MARTIN GINSBURG, EDWARD
)
LAWRENCE, SHARON MARTIN, MARK
)
M. NAEGER, JOHN NYPL, DANIEL
)
SAYLE, WILLIAM STAGE,
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
ANHEUSER-BUSCH InBEV SA/NV, et al,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
______________________________________ )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: 3:13-cv-1309-MMC

PLAINTIFFS’ DEMAND FOR
ORAL ARGUMENT ON
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO
FED. R. CIV. PROC. 59(e) OR
60(b), OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE RULE 60(d)
AND ORDER THEREON

Judge Maxine Chesney
Courtroom 7, 19th Floor

27
28
-1–
Plaintiffs’ Demand for Oral Argument on Motion for Relief from Judgment

1

Plaintiffs hereby respectfully demand oral argument on the Motion for Relief from

2

Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b), or in the alternative, Rule 60(d) (Dkt.

3

No. 135, hereinafter the “Motion”) as a matter of Due Process and fairness, as follows:

4

On November 11, 2013, Plaintiffs filed the Motion, which requests that this Court

5

vacate the Judgment in this matter because of Defendants’ misrepresentations to this Court

6

and the Defendants’ contumacious fulfillment of the anticompetitive effects that had been

7
8
9

alleged by the Plaintiffs pursuant to Section 7 of the Clayton Act, in which the Plaintiffs
claimed that the combination “may” lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. It is

10

now plain by reason of the substantial and massive price increases that the very

11

anticompetitive effects that the Plaintiffs allege “may” happen, have in fact happened (See

12

United States v. Pabst Brewing Co., 384 U.S. 546 (1966); United States v. Falstaff Brewing

13
14

Co., 410 U.S. 526 (1973)); and that this Court should and must hear oral argument with
regard to the substantial changes in factual circumstances, vacate the Judgment, and require

15
16

that the Defendants maintain a strict status quo pending a hearing and decision by this Court.

17

Because these matters are of such a substantial nature, affecting tens of millions of

18

Americans everyday, and because the Court’s rulings were of a dispositive nature, due

19

process and ordinary fairness require that this Court allow oral argument. It is the belief of

20

the Plaintiffs that oral argument will assist the Court with regard to these substantial issues

21

and that mere paper argument is insufficient and contrary to customary Anglo-American

22
tradition of jurisprudence.
23
24

In addition, these newspaper articles reporting Crown’s price increases and

25

demonstrating Defendants’ misrepresentations are the only evidence Plaintiffs can put

26

before the Court because the Magistrate prevented Plaintiffs from taking the depositions of

27

the persons involved in the combination, notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ agreement that we

28

would only take them for one day each. We are private plaintiffs. We cannot compel these
-2–
Plaintiffs’ Demand for Oral Argument on Motion for Relief from Judgment

1

people to attend depositions. We cannot convene a grand jury. We cannot order the FBI to

2

interview them. We can only rely on the discovery rules. In this case, we were required to

3

submit them to the United States Magistrate. The United States Magistrate issued a blanket

4

denial, preventing us from submitting any substantial evidence to this Court in support of

5

what Plaintiffs respectfully submit is a clear and unadulterated violation of Section 7 of the

6

Clayton Act, and most probably Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

7
8
9

The Motion was noticed for hearing on December 20, 2013, and briefing on the
Motion was completed on December 1, 2013. On December 16, 2013, four days before the

10

hearing which had been noticed over a month earlier, Defendants advised counsel for

11

Plaintiffs that they needed to move the hearing because of a “conflict” which required one of

12

Defendants’ counsel to be out of the country. Defendants never disclosed the nature of this

13
14

conflict, other than advising that one attorney was required to be out of the country on that
date. (Decl. of JMA, Exhibit A). On that same date, counsel for Plaintiffs agreed to

15
16

stipulate to moving the hearing date to January. The following day, counsel for Defendants

17

had proposed January 17, 2014 and January 24, 2014, as possible hearing dates on this

18

matter, when this Court entered an order (Dkt. No. 138), which vacated the December 20,

19

2013, hearing and deemed the matter suitable for decision on the papers.

20
21

Plaintiffs respectfully demand oral argument as a matter of Due Process and fairness,
on the Motion for any one of the proposed dates set forth by counsel for Defendants—either

22
January 17 or January 24. Plaintiffs believe that oral argument will be of assistance and aid
23
24

the Court with regard to the validity of the opposition in this matter. Plaintiffs should be

25

granted the opportunity to be heard on this critical motion, which involves serious

26

misrepresentations by Defendants to this Court involving Defendants’ price increases.

27
28
-3–
Plaintiffs’ Demand for Oral Argument on Motion for Relief from Judgment

1

Dated: December 20, 2013

ALIOTO LAW FIRM

2
By:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

/s/ Joseph M. Alioto
Joseph M. Alioto
Theresa D. Moore
Thomas P. Pier
Jamie L. Miller
ALIOTO LAW FIRM
One Sansome Street, 35th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

10
11
12

ORDER

13

Plaintiffs' request is hereby GRANTED and the hearing on plaintiffs'
15 Motion for Relief from Judgment is hereby scheduled for January 24, 2014,
at 9:00 a.m.
16
Dated: December 23, 2013
__________________________
17
United States District Judge
14

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4–
Plaintiffs’ Demand for Oral Argument on Motion for Relief from Judgment