U.S. EX REL. SEQUOIA ORANGE COMPANY v. SATICOY LEMON ASS'N, (E.D.Cal. 1992)

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Case No. CV-F-91-197-OWW, CV-F-91-194 OWW, CV-F-91-195 OWW, CV-F-91-196 OWW.

Motions

Motion to dismiss : Denied

Attorney(S)

TUTTLE TAYLOR, A Law Corporation, ROBERT G. TAYLOR, MICHAEL H. BIERMAN, JEFFREY D. WEXLER, a member of the law firm of Tuttle Taylor, A Law Corporation, Attorneys for Defendant Sunkist Growers, Inc. Daniel Bensing, Assistant United States Attorney, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Judges

Oliver Winston Wanger

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

UNITED STATES ex rel. SEQUOIA ORANGE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SATICOY LEMON ASSOCIATION; SUNKIST GROWERS, INC.; EDWARD MADIGAN, Secretary of Agriculture; JACK PARNELL, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture; JO ANN SMITH, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture; DAN HALEY, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Ser

STIPULATION RE EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT SUNKIST GROWERS, INC. TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

OLIVER WANGER, District Judge

WHEREAS, the Complaint in the above-captioned action was served upon defendant Sunkist Growers, Inc. ("Sunkist") on June 8, 1992;

WHEREAS, under Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Sunkist's time to respond to the Complaint now expires on June 28, 1992;

WHEREAS, under Rule 142(a) of the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California the parties may, without approval of the Court, file an initial stipulation extending time to respond to a complaint by up to 30 days;

WHEREAS, the parties to this action have agreed, through their attorneys of record, to extend by 30 days Sunkist's time to respond to the Complaint.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Sunkist shall have an additional 30 days, until July 28, 1992, to respond to the Complaint in the above-captioned action.

ORDERS RE DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Motions to dismiss of defendants in the above-captioned cases came on for hearing August 26, 1991, in Courtroom 2 of this Court. Plaintiff was represented by James Moody, Esq., and Brian C. Leighton, Esq. Defendants were represented by Daniel Bensing, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney.

The Court has considered all papers in support of and opposition to the motions, all pleadings on file in the action and the arguments of counsel. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion;

IT IS ORDERED that defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints in these actions are DENIED, except to the extent that the complaint seeks to recover under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 32729(a)(1) or (a)(2) on the ground that shipping pro rate allotments are not the type of government property protected under the False Claims Act, such claim is dismissed with leave to amend.

FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint as to defendants Jack Parnell, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, Joanne Smith, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, and Dan Haley, Administrator of Agricultural Marketing Service, are GRANTED.

FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' request for Rule 11 sanctions are DENIED.

Comments