Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05513/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05513-9/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, INC., and

FRESNO FARMING, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SUNTRUST BANK,

Defendant.

________________________________

SUNTRUST BANK,

Counter-Claimant,

v.

FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, INC., and

FRESNO FARMING, LLC,

Counter-Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:04-cv-5513 OWW SMS

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

AS TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND

BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM

This Court having considered Defendant Suntrust Bank’s

Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Rule 52(c)

(Docket No. 199), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. With respect to Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory

judgment under Count III of the First Amended Complaint, the

Court finds that there is no uncertainty, insecurity, or

Case 1:04-cv-05513-OWW -SMS Document 213 Filed 10/12/07 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

controversy regarding the parties’ rights and obligations under

the agreements at issue in this case. The Suntrust Letters of

Credit have expired, and the Notes have been returned to the

Zacky Trust and the Brand Family Trust. Suntrust no longer has a

banking relationship with Plaintiffs. Because Plaintiffs do not

require guidance from this Court regarding their future conduct

under any of the agreements at issue in this case, Suntrust’s

motion for judgment as a matter of law as to this Count is

GRANTED, and Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory judgment under

Count III of the First Amended Complaint is hereby dismissed with

prejudice.

2. Suntrust’s motion for judgment as a matter of law with

respect to Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees REMAINS PENDING

so that Plaintiffs may have an opportunity to respond to the

motion in writing.

3. Suntrust’s motion for judgment as a matter of law with

respect to Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of contract under Count 1

of the First Amended Complaint is DENIED as material issues of

fact and law remain that cannot be resolved as a matter of law. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05513-OWW -SMS Document 213 Filed 10/12/07 Page 2 of 2