Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v. United Potato Growers of America, Inc. et al
ORDER denying without prejudice (694) Plaintiff AWGs Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part (700) Potandons Motion for a Scheduling Order Regarding Its Counterclaim; denying (808) Plaintiff Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc .s Motion for Suggestion of Remand in case 4:10-md-02186-BLW-CWD; denying (334); granting in part and denying in part (238) in case 4:13-cv-00251-BLW-CWD. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. Associated Cases: 4:10-md-02186-BLW-CWD, 4:13-cv-00251-BLW-CWD(caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
IN RE: FRESH AND PROCESS
Case No. 4:10-MD-2186-BLW
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
Kansas Tag-Along Action Only
Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc. v.
United Potato Growers of America, et.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc.’s Motion for Suggestion of
Remand (Dkt. 808) is DENIED as explained on the record at the May 11,
2015 status conference.
2. Plaintiff AWG’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant Potandon’s
Counterclaim (Dkt. 694) is DENIED Without Prejudice.
3. Potandon’s Motion for a Scheduling Order Regarding Its Counterclaim
(Dkt. 700) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part in accordance with
the Court’s earlier order staying the motion for summary judgment, its
ruling here denying deny the motion for summary judgment without
prejudice, and the process outlined below on how the Court will proceed.
ORDER - 1
4. The Court will determine the issue of whether the rule of reason or per se
standard applies to Potandon’s counterclaim without further delay. This is a
purely legal issue, which will be unaffected by further discovery or expert
testimony. Moreover, an early resolution of that issue will substantially
affect (1) the adequacy of the allegations contained in Potandon’s
counterclaim, (2) the scope and nature of the expert testimony which the
parties may wish to secure and present in these proceedings, and (3) the
parties’ approach to dispositive motions. Given, the charge of Rule 1, that
the Rules of Civil Procedure be “administered to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding,” I have
concluded that a preliminary ruling on this pivotal issue is appropriate and
necessary at this time. FED. R. CIV. P. 1. At my suggestion, the parties
have fully briefed the issue, and no further briefing will be permitted.
However, I will hear oral argument on the issue. The Court will issue a
separate notice of hearing to schedule oral argument. Oral argument will be
limited to 30 minutes per side, but will be conducted in person.
5. By way of a roadmap, I note that if the Court determines that the rule of
reason standard applies to the counterclaim, Potandon will be given
approximately 21 days from the date of the that ruling to file an amended
counterclaim alleging sufficient facts to support such a claim. However,
regardless of the Court’s ruling, counsel should proceed to develop a
ORDER - 2
scheduling order, which will bring the pretrial phase of this case to a close
as quickly as possible. Given, my decision to immediately resolve the issue
of which evidentiary standard applies to Potandon’s counterclaim, I see no
reason for expediting the dispositive motion deadline applicable to the
DATED: May 13, 2015
B. Lynn Winmill
United States District Court
ORDER - 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?