IL Fornaio (America) Corp. et al v. Lazzari Fuel Company, LLC et al

Filing 39

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING CONSOLIDATION Show Cause Joint Response due by 2/6/2014.. Signed by Judge Alsup on January 27, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiffs,
v.

20

Defendants.
/
DARBAR CUISINE, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING CONSOLIDATION

LAZZARI FUEL COMPANY, LLC,
CALIFORNIA CHARCOAL AND FIREWOOD,
INC., and CHEF’S CHOICE MESQUITE
CHARCOAL,

18
19

Nos. C 13-05197 WHA;
C 13-05331 WHA

IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) CORPORATION,
OLIVETO PARTNERS, LTD., and THE FAMOUS
ENTERPRISE FISH COMPANY OF SANTA
MONICA, INC., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,

v.
CHEF’S CHOICE MESQUITE CHARCOAL,
LAZZARI FUEL COMPANY LLC,
CALIFORNIA CHARCOAL AND FIREWOOD,
INC., and WILLIAM W. LORD,
Defendants.
/
In this putative antitrust class action involving mesquite charcoal, plaintiffs move for the
appointment of interim lead counsel in two related class action proceedings. In preparation for

1

the hearing on the motion and the case management conference scheduled for February 27, this

2

order requests a joint response by FEBRUARY 6.

3

In November 2013, plaintiffs filed a 23-page class action complaint alleging “at least a

4

ten-year conspiracy to fix, raise and/or stabilize prizes, and allocate the market and customers in

5

the United States for Mesquite Lump Charcoal” in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act,

6

15 U.S.C. 1, by three defendants (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 85). Il Fornaio (America) Corp., et al. v. Lazzari

7

Fuel Company, LLC, No. 3:13-cv-05197-WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2013). The complaint was

8

filed by proposed counsel (1) Pritzker | Law and (2) Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP. The

9

following class is proposed:

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

All persons in the United States who purchased Mesquite Lump
Charcoal directly from any Defendant, and/or their subsidiaries
and co-conspirators, during the period from and including January
2000 through at least September 30, 2011 (the ‘Class Period’).

12
13
14

(Il Fornaio, Compl. ¶ 8).
Eight days later, Darbar Cuisine, Inc. filed a 9-page class action complaint against the

15

same three defendants and individual William W. Lord, the owner of defendant Chef’s Choice

16

Mesquite Charcoal, alleging antitrust violations. Darbar Cuisine, Inc. v. Chef’s Choice Mesquite

17

Charcoal, et al., No. 3:13-cv-05331-WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2013). The complaint was filed

18

by different proposed counsel, Saveri & Saveri, Inc. and Bonsignore & Brewer. The following

19

class is proposed:

20
21
22
23
24
25

All individuals and entities, who, during the period from
approximately January 1, 2000 through at least September 30,
2010 (the ‘Class Period’), purchased mesquite charcoal in the
United States directly from the Defendants, their subsidiaries or
their co-conspirator. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and
their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, all governmental entities, and
co-conspirators.
(Darbar, Compl. ¶ 13).
A November 27 order by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley related the Il Fornaio

26

and Darbar actions (Il Fornaio, Dkt. No. 14). On January 10, 2014, both actions were assigned

27

to the undersigned judge.

28
2

1

On January 22, plaintiffs filed a motion to appoint Elizabeth C. Pritzker of Pritzker | Law

2

as interim lead counsel for both the Il Fornaio and Darbar actions (Il Fornaio, Dkt. No. 33).

3

Plaintiff filed a notice of filing in the Darbar action (appending the motion and supporting

4

documents). Counsel’s declaration indicates that plaintiffs’ counsel in Il Fornaio and plaintiff’s

5

counsel in Darbar “were unable to reach agreement” on selection of interim lead class counsel

6

and “Darbar’s counsel have represented that they will oppose any interim lead counsel proposal

7

that does not include one or both of the firms listed on the Darbar complaint in the proposed

8

appointment” (Pritzker Decl. ¶ 21).

9

By FEBRUARY 6, the parties, including Darbar Cuisine, Inc., shall file a joint statement
(not to exceed EIGHT PAGES) regarding consolidation of the Il Fornaio and Darbar actions

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

pursuant to FRCP 42(a) for pre-trial and/or trial purposes.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: January 27, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3