Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06706/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06706-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

MANATT, PHELPS & 

PHILLIPS, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

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 

41157822.1 1 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS 

TO DISMISS, ABSTAIN AND STRIKE AND ESTABLISHING SCHEDULE FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 

RONALD S. KATZ (Bar No. CA 085713) 

JACK S. YEH (Bar No. CA 174286) 

MATTHEW S. URBACH (Bar No. CA 192059) 

11355 West Olympic Boulevard 

Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614 

Telephone: (310) 312-4000 

Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FLYING J, INC. 

KIMBLE, MACMICHAEL & UPTON 

STEVE MCGEE (Bar No. CA 71886) 

Fig Garden Financial Center 

5260 North Palm Avenue, Suite 221 

Fresno, CA 93704 

Telephone: (559) 435-5500 

Facsimile: (559) 435-1500 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FLYING J, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FLYING J, INC., a Utah Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

THOMAS PISTACCHIO, an individual, 

DELORES PISTACCHIO, an individual, 

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA KENWORTH, 

a California corporation; JOHN R. 

LAWSON, an individual; JOHN R. 

LAWSON ROCK & OIL, INC., a 

California Corporation. 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:03-CV-06706 OWW NEW (WMW) 

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING 

HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS 

TO DISMISS, ABSTAIN AND STRIKE AND 

ESTABLISHING SCHEDULE FOR 

FURTHER BRIEFING 

WHEREAS on December 18, 2006, Defendants Thomas Pistacchio, Delores Pistacchio, 

and Central California Kenworth (the “Pistacchio Defendants”) filed (1) a motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) a motion to dismiss and/or 

abstain pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (3) a motion to 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:03-cv-06706-OWW -GSA Document 145 Filed 09/20/07 Page 1 of 6
MANATT, PHELPS & 

PHILLIPS, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

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 

41157822.1 2 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS 

TO DISMISS, ABSTAIN AND STRIKE AND ESTABLISHING SCHEDULE FOR FURTHER BRIEFING 

strike and/or dismiss all claims pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 425.16 

(the “Pistacchio Motions”); 

WHEREAS on December 21, 2006, Defendants John R. Lawson and John R. Lawson 

Rock & Oil (the “Lawson Defendants”) filed (1) a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) a motion to dismiss and/or abstain pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (3) a motion to strike and/or dismiss all 

claims pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 425.16 (the “Lawson 

Motions”)(the Pistacchio Motions and the Lawson Motions shall collectively hereinafter be 

referred to as the “Motions”); 

WHEREAS the Pistacchio Defendants and the Lawson Defendants are collectively 

referred to herein as the “Defendants”; 

WHEREAS Defendants’ reply briefs (“Reply Briefs”) in response to Flying J’s 

oppositions to Defendants’ Motions assert that the judgment in a Mandamus Action filed by 

Flying J in Kern County Superior Court , which has become final since Defendants motions were 

filed, has preclusive effects on this action; 

WHEREAS Defendants have filed objections (“Evidentiary Objections”) to the evidence 

submitted by Flying J in support of Flying J’s oppositions to Defendants Motions; 

WHEREAS Flying J requests an opportunity to prepare and file points and authorities in 

response to Defendants’ arguments regarding the alleged preclusive effect of the decision in the 

Mandamus Action or to refute Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections; 

WHEREAS, the Court continued the hearing on Defendants’ Motions sua sponte from 

September 10, 2007 to October 1, 2007; 

WHEREAS, lead counsel for Flying J, Ronald Katz, has a pre-planned and pre-paid 

vacation and will be out of the country from September 26, 2007 through October 10, 2007; 

WHEREAS the parties wish to continue the Scheduling Conference currently set for 

October 19, 2007 to November 30, 2007 in order to provide this Court ample time to rule on 

Defendants’ Motions and thereafter to allow the parties time to conduct the Rule 26 conference of 

counsel and to prepare the Joint Scheduling Report; 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:03-cv-06706-OWW -GSA Document 145 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 6
MANATT, PHELPS & 

PHILLIPS, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

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 

41157822.1 3 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS 

TO DISMISS, ABSTAIN AND STRIKE AND ESTABLISHING SCHEDULE FOR FURTHER BRIEFING 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Flying J and Defendants, through their 

respective counsel, as follows: 

1. On or before September 21, 2007, Flying J shall file and serve sur-reply briefs, not 

to exceed 15 pages per brief, in response to the specific claim preclusion and issue preclusion 

arguments set forth in Defendants’ respective Reply Briefs as follows: 

a. Lawson Defendants’ Reply Brief in support of their anti-SLAPP Motion at: 

1:18-28; 8:12 - 12:2; 12:3 - 14:2; 24:3 - 25:3; 29:3-19; 30:7-13; 53:17 - 

54:6; 61:25-62:11 and FN 37 

b. Pistacchio Defendants’ Reply Brief in support of their Motion to Dismiss 

at: 5:12 - 6:3 

c. Pistacchio Defendants’ Reply Brief in support of its anti-SLAPP Motion at: 

2:16 - 6:4; 6:7 - 7:11; 11:1 - 13:6; 13:8 - 16:2 and the Addendum thereto. 

2. On or before October 5, 2007, Defendants, at their option, may file and serve 

briefs, not to exceed 10 pages each, in response to Flying J’s sur-replies. 

3. On or before September 28, 2007, Flying J shall file and serve responses to 

Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections. Flying J’s responses to Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections 

may not contain arguments regarding claim preclusion and/or issue preclusion not raised in 

Flying J’s sur-replies. 

4. Flying J does not anticipate introducing any new evidence in connection with its 

sur-reply briefing; however, to the extent Flying J seeks to introduce any such evidence in 

connection with its sur-reply, Defendants reserve their right to move to strike any such evidence; 

5. The hearing on Defendants’ Motions, currently set for October 1, 2007 shall be 

continued to October 25, 2007 at noon. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:03-cv-06706-OWW -GSA Document 145 Filed 09/20/07 Page 3 of 6
MANATT, PHELPS & 

PHILLIPS, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

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 

41157822.1 4 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS 

TO DISMISS, ABSTAIN AND STRIKE AND ESTABLISHING SCHEDULE FOR FURTHER BRIEFING 

6. The Scheduling Conference currently set for October 19, 2007 shall be continued 

to November 30, 2007 at 8:45 a.m. 

DATED: September __, 2007. MANATT PHELPS AND PHILLIPS LLP 

By: 

 Matthew S. Urbach, 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff Flying J, Inc. 

DATED: September __, 2007. SAGASER, JONES & HELSLEY

By: 

John P. Kinsey, Attorneys for Defendants 

John R. Lawson and John R. Lawson Rock & 

Oil, Inc. 

 

 LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM C.HAHESY 

 By:______________________________________ 

 William C.Hahesy, Attorneys for Defendants 

John R. Lawson and John R. Lawson Rock & 

Oil, Inc. 

DATED: September __, 2007. BAKER KEENER AND NAHRA 

By: 

Daniel Patrick Leonard, Attorneys for 

Defendants Thomas Pistacchio, Delores 

Pistacchio, and Central Calif. Kenworth and 

Central California Kenworth, Inc. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:03-cv-06706-OWW -GSA Document 145 Filed 09/20/07 Page 4 of 6
MANATT, PHELPS & 

PHILLIPS, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

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 

41157822.1 5 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS 

TO DISMISS, ABSTAIN AND STRIKE AND ESTABLISHING SCHEDULE FOR FURTHER BRIEFING 

ORDER

The Court having reviewed the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing therefor: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. On or before September 21, 2007, Flying J shall file and serve sur-reply briefs, not 

to exceed 15 pages each, in response to the claim preclusion and issue preclusion arguments set 

forth in Defendants’ respective Reply Briefs at: 

a. Lawson Defendants’ Reply Brief in support of their anti-SLAPP Motion at: 

1:18-28; 8:12 - 12:2; 12:3 - 14:2; 24:3 - 25:3; 29:3-19; 30:7-13; 53:17 - 

54:6; 61:25-62:11 and FN 37 

b. Pistacchio Defendants’ Reply Brief in support of their Motion to Dismiss 

at: 5:12 - 6:3 

c. Pistacchio Defendants’ Reply Brief in support of its anti-SLAPP Motion at: 

2:16 - 6:4; 6:7 - 7:11; 11:1 - 13:6; 13:8 - 16:2 and the Addendum thereto. 

2. On or before October 5, 2007, Defendants may, at their option, file and serve 

briefs, not to exceed 10 pages each, in response to Flying J’s sur-replies. 

3. On or before September 28, 2007, Flying J shall file and serve responses to 

Defendants’ Evidentiary Objections. Flying J’s responses to Defendants’ Evidentiary 

Objections may not contain arguments regarding claim preclusion and/or issue preclusion not 

raised in Flying J’s sur-replies. 

4. Flying J does not anticipate introducing any new evidence in connection with its 

sur-reply briefing; however, to the extent Flying J seeks to introduce any such evidence in 

connection with its sur-reply, Defendants reserve their right to move to strike any such evidence; 

5. The hearing on Defendants’ Motions, currently set for October 1, 2007 shall be 

continued to October 25, 2007 at noon. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

/// 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:03-cv-06706-OWW -GSA Document 145 Filed 09/20/07 Page 5 of 6
MANATT, PHELPS & 

PHILLIPS, LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

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 

41157822.1 6 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS 

TO DISMISS, ABSTAIN AND STRIKE AND ESTABLISHING SCHEDULE FOR FURTHER BRIEFING 

6. The Scheduling Conference currently set for October 19, 2007 shall be continued 

to November 30, 2007 at 8:45 a.m. 

DATED: September 18, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger

Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

 United States District Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:03-cv-06706-OWW -GSA Document 145 Filed 09/20/07 Page 6 of 6