Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05513/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05513-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FOSTER FARMS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 

AND SUNTRUST BANK’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HOWREY LLP 

Benjamin K. Riley (State Bar No. 112007) 

Helen C. MacLeod (State Bar No. 206618) 

HOWREY LLP 

525 Market Street, Suite 3600 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 848-4900 

Facsimile: (415) 848-4999 

Carmine R. Zarlenga (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

HOWREY LLP 

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: (202) 783-0800 

Facsimile: (202) 383-6610 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs FOSTER POULTRY FARMS 

and FRESNO FARMING, LLC 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRESNO DIVISION 

FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, INC. and 

FRESNO FARMING LLC, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

SUNTRUST BANK, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. CIV-F-04-5513 OWW/SMS 

SUPPLEMENTAL 

ORDER RE FOSTER FARMS’ MOTION 

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 

AND SUNTRUST BANK’S CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Judge: Hon. Oliver W. Wanger 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:04-cv-05513-OWW -SMS Document 150 Filed 07/16/07 Page 1 of 4
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FOSTER FARMS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 

AND SUNTRUST BANK’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HOWREY LLP 1

The motion of Plaintiffs Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. and Fresno Farming, LLC (“Foster Farms”) 

for partial summary judgment, and the cross-motion of Defendant SunTrust Bank (“SunTrust”) for 

summary judgment came on regularly for hearing before this Court on November 14, 2005, at 10:00 

a.m. Carmine R. Zarlenga appeared as attorney for Plaintiffs, and James H. Cox appeared as attorney 

for Defendant SunTrust Bank. 

After considering the moving and opposition papers, arguments of counsel and all other matters 

presented to the Court, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Foster Farm’s motion on the ground that SunTrust breached its confidentiality 

agreements with Foster Farms, and SunTrust’s motion that it did not breach those confidentiality 

agreements, are DENIED because there are disputed issues regarding whether and to what extent and 

for what purpose SunTrust used Foster confidential information in violation of the Credit Package. 

2. SunTrust's motion that Foster Farms has not suffered damages as a result of SunTrust’s 

breach of their confidentiality agreements and the monetization is DENIED because this issue is not 

amenable to resolution by summary judgment without a finding against all of Foster Farms’ claims for 

liability as a matter of law. 

3. SunTrust’s motion that Foster Farms does not have standing to bring suit under the 

Letters of Credit is DENIED because the facts and inferences to be drawn from those facts are 

disputed. 

4. SunTrust’s motion that Foster Farms’ claims are limited by the damages limitation 

clause found in Section 2.2(j) of the parties’ Credit Agreement is DENIED because there is a disputed 

issue of material fact regarding whether the single party and entire transfer provisions in the Letters of 

Credit were intended to override Section 2.2(j). 

5. Foster Farms’ motion that Paragraph 6 of the Letters of Credit was intended to be a 

single party provision is DENIED because the facts and inferences to be drawn from those facts are 

disputed. 

6. SunTrust’s motion that it is not the transferor of the promissory notes held by the Zacky 

and Brand family trusts is DENIED. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:04-cv-05513-OWW -SMS Document 150 Filed 07/16/07 Page 2 of 4
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FOSTER FARMS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 

AND SUNTRUST BANK’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HOWREY LLP 2

7. Foster Farm’s motion that SunTrust violated Paragraph 6 of the Letters of Credit 

because SunTrust is not the holder of the promissory notes in their entirety is DENIED because there is 

a material dispute about whether SunTrust is the holder of the notes in their entirety. 

8. Foster Farm’s motion that SunTrust violated Paragraph 6 of the Letters of Credit 

because SunTrust is now the sole beneficiary of the Letters of Credit is DENIED because there are 

disputed issues of fact and disputed inferences to be drawn from those facts. 

9. Foster Farm’s motion that SunTrust violated Paragraph 6 by failing to comply with the 

re-issue requirement is GRANTED “to the extent that SunTrust failed to re-issue the Letters of Credit, 

assuming it is determined that Foster has standing . . . .The legal consequences of that failure, i.e., 

whether the failure to re-issue was deliberate, inadvertent, or the failure to complete a ministerial act, 

are questions of fact to be resolved by the trier of fact.” 

10. SunTrust’s motion with respect to Foster Farms’ claim of a breach of the implied 

covenant of good faith and fair dealing is GRANTED. 

11. SunTrust’s motion with respect to Foster Farm’s declaratory relief is DENIED because 

resolution of that claim is premature, given the Court’s rulings with respect to the various grounds on 

which both Foster Farms and SunTrust moved for summary judgment above. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 7/16/2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

 Hon. Oliver W. Wanger 

 United States District Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:04-cv-05513-OWW -SMS Document 150 Filed 07/16/07 Page 3 of 4
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FOSTER FARMS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, 

AND SUNTRUST BANK’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HOWREY LLP 3

PROOF OF SERVICE

I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a 

party to the within action. My business address is 2020 Main Street, Suite 1000, Irvine, California 

92614. 

On July 10, 2007, I served on the interested parties in said action the within: 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE FOSTER FARMS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT, AND SUNTRUST BANK’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope(s) addressed as stated below and causing 

such envelope(s) to be deposited in the U.S. Mail at Irvine, California. 

James H. Cox, Esq. 

Carlton Fields, P.A. 

One Atlantic Centre 

1201 West Peachtree Street, Suite 3000 

Atlanta, CA 30309 

Fax: 404.815.3415 

Email: JHCox@CarltonFields.com

Lowell T. Carruth, Esq. 

McCormick Barstow Sheppard 

 Wayte & Carruth LLP 

5 River Park Place East 

Fresno, CA 93729-8912 

Fax: 209.433.2300 

Email: lowell.carruth@mccormickbarstow.com

(ELECTRONIC SERVICE) was filed electronically with the Clerk of Court to be served by 

operation of the Court’s electronic filing system upon the following: 

I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of 

this Court at whose direction the service was made and that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on July 10, 2007, at Irvine, California. 

Patti Fisher /s/ Patti Fisher 

(Type or print name) (Signature) 

X

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:04-cv-05513-OWW -SMS Document 150 Filed 07/16/07 Page 4 of 4