Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05474/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05474-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 423
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawal 28 USC 157
Cause of Action: 28:0157 Motion for Withdrawal of Reference

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREG BRAUN, Chapter 11 Trustee, CASE NO. CV-F-04-5474 LJO

Plaintiff, ORDER TO AMEND PRETRIAL ORDER

vs.

THOMAS O’BRIEN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

At the January 31, 2006 pretrial conference, defense counsel requested to add disputed facts and

points of law to include in the pretrial order and intimated that he would seek to add at most a few

overlooked, minor disputed facts and points of law. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the addition of limited

disputed facts and points of law. After defendants proposed 26 additional disputed facts and seven

points of law, this Court issued its February 2, 2002 order to deny defendants’ request for the additional

disputed facts and points of law. This Court further issued its February 2, 2002 pretrial order to include

only the disputed facts and points of law included in the parties’ joint pretrial statement.

On February 7, 2005, defendants requested to add one disputed fact and one point of law. The

requested disputed fact and point oflaw are in line with the agreement reached at the pretrial conference.

As such, this Court finds sufficient cause to amend the pretrial statement to add the following disputed

fact and point of law:

Disputed Fact No. 40. In deciding how to proceed with Agri-Systems, Mr. O’Brien considered

several issues, including safety, resale value of the mill and the costs to replace Agri-Systems.

Case 1:04-cv-05474-NEW Document 73 Filed 02/08/06 Page 1 of 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

2

Defendants’ Point of Law: Mr. O’Brien’s actions are protected under the business judgment rule,

including all actions taken by him before Coast Grain’s bankruptcy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

66h44dDated: February 8, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05474-NEW Document 73 Filed 02/08/06 Page 2 of 2