Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06374/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06374-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 07:499 Agricultural Commodities Act

---

BART M. BOTTA, State Bar No. 167051

RYNN & JANOWSKY

4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 700

Newport Beach, CA 92660

Telephone: (949) 752-2911

Facsimile: (949) 752-0953

Attorneys for PACA Claimant/Plaintiffs in Intervention

UNIMARK FOODS, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - FRESNO DIVISION

FOUR SEASONS PRODUCE, INC. a

Corporation,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

CONTINENTAL FOOD GROUP, LLC., a

limited liability company; KI THOMPSON,

an individual; LIONEL R. GUZMAN, an

individual; NEW LEAF TREE FRUIT, LLC,

a limited liability company, 

 Defendants.

CASE NO. CIV-F-03-6374 LJO

STIPULATION FOR CONTINUANCE OF

HEARING ON MOTION TO

DETERMINE VALIDITY OF PACA

TRUST CLAIM OF UNIMARK FOODS;

[PROPOSED] ORDER THEREON

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

Date: July 11, 2005

Time: 1:30 p.m.

Courtroom: 1 (Judge Coyle)

WHEREAS, UNIMARK FOODS (“UniMark”) filed its Motion to Determine the

Validity of its PACA Trust Claim in this action pursuant to the August 16, 2004 Stipulated

Injunction Order; and

WHEREAS, the hearing on UniMark’s motion is currently scheduled for July 11,

2005;

WHEREAS, certain parties filed objections to the PACA trust claim of UniMark;

Case 1:03-cv-06374-NEW Document 112 Filed 06/30/05 Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, the parties have engaged in, and are continuing to engage in settlement

negotiations that will resolve all objections to UniMark’s PACA claim and negate the need to

hold a hearing;

WHEREAS, the parties are very close to a full settlement, but a settlement cannot be

finalized because part of the settlement depends on the timing of the distribution to Continental

Food Group, LLC, a Defendant in this case, from the litigation currently pending in the United

States District Court, Southern District of New York, Continental Food, et al. v. P.J. Produce,

Inc., et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-07101, which should be decided soon;

WHEREAS, the parties believe the convenience of the parties and judicial economy

will be furthered by postponing the hearing on the motion to determine the validity of

UniMark’s PACA claim for a period of at least six (6) months, and continuing all

corresponding objection and reply dates based on the new hearing date.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by, between and among the parties hereto, that the

hearing on UniMark’s motion to determine the validity of its PACA claim is continued for a

period of at least six (6) months, to any day on or after December 30, 2005, and that all

corresponding objection and reply dates be likewise continued based on the continued hearing

date and Local Rule 78-230.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: _____________, 2005 CHOATE & CHOATE

BRADLEY L. CORNELL

Counsel for Plaintiffs 

Four Seasons Produce, Inc., et al.

[SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]

Case 1:03-cv-06374-NEW Document 112 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 5
Dated: _____________, 2005 FARLEY LAW FIRM

MICHAEL L. FARLEY

Counsel for Defendants

Continental Food Group, LLC, et al.

Dated: _____________, 2005 KIMBLE, MACMICHAEL & UPTON

CHRISTOPHER E. SEYMOUR

Counsel for Defendant New Leaf Tree Fruit

Company, Inc.

Dated: ______________, 2005 RYNN & JANOWSKY, LLP

BART BOTTA

Attorney for UniMark Foods, Inc.

Dated: _____________, 2005 ROJAS, SANTOS, STOKES & GARCIA

CRAIG A. STOKES

Counsel for Intervenors 

Citricos Cortes, SPR de RI, et al.

Dated: ____________, 2005 LEDFORD LAW CORPORATION

MERL LEDFORD, III

Counsel for Euro-Pacific Fruit Export, Inc.

Dated: ____________, 2005 MEUERS LAW FIRM

Case 1:03-cv-06374-NEW Document 112 Filed 06/30/05 Page 3 of 5
LAWRENCE H. MEUERS

Counsel for DNE World Fruit Sales a dba of

Bernard Egan & Company

[SIGNATURES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]

Case 1:03-cv-06374-NEW Document 112 Filed 06/30/05 Page 4 of 5
Dated: ____________, 2005 TYRE KAMINS KATZ GRANOF MENES

ALAN J. COHEN

Counsel for James Abbate dba Pacific Sales Co. 

ORDER

Having read and considered the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing,

therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on UniMark’s Motion to Determine

Validity of its PACA claim is continued for at least six (6) months until January 13, 2006, and

that all corresponding objection and reply dates are likewise continued as set forth in Local

Rule 78-230, calculated from the new hearing date.

IT IS FURTHER HEREREBY ORDERED that the hearing currently set for Unimark’s

motion on July 11, 2005 is to be taken off calendar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06374-NEW Document 112 Filed 06/30/05 Page 5 of 5