Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00743/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00743-1/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

HUMAN MATRIX SCIENCES, LLC, a

California limited liability

company,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN FIBER & FINISHING,

INC., a Delaware corporation;

and DOES 1 through 30,

inclusive,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:08-cv-0743 OWW DLB

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 6/12/09

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 7/17/09

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 8/10/09

Settlement Conference Date:

9/3/09 10:00 Ctrm. 9

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 10/19/09 11:00 Ctrm.

3

Trial Date: 12/1/09 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-5 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

September 4, 2008.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Kimble, MacMichael & Upton by Jeremy D. Clar, Esq., appeared

on behalf of Plaintiff. 

Baker, Manock & Jensen by Dirk B. Paloutzian, Esq., appeared

on behalf of Defendant. 

///

Case 1:08-cv-00743-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/08 Page 1 of 12
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

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

Plaintiff’s Summary

1. In 2005, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an

Agreement whereby Plaintiff agreed to sell its cosmetic products

to Defendant at cost, and Defendant agreed to pay for the

products upon being invoiced. In addition to paying the

invoices, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff one-half (50%) of the

net profits from Defendant’s sale of Plaintiff’s products. 

Defendant further agreed and was required to provide to Plaintiff

accountings of all sales of the products along with payment of

the fee.

2. As an additional term of the Agreement, Plaintiff

developed a product line specifically for sale by Defendant, and

Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff for the development of the

product line. Plaintiff incurred costs in excess of $171,208 to

develop this product line. Defendant also agreed to market

Plaintiff’s products. Plaintiff incurred promotional costs of

approximately $55,431, which Defendant agreed to pay.

3. Defendant breached the Agreement by failing to pay

Plaintiff for the products supplied by Plaintiff upon being

invoiced, failing to adequately market, advertise or support the

sale of Plaintiff’s products, failing to develop new markets or

support existing markets for these products, and stopping its

sales of Plaintiff’s products. As a result of the breaches of

the Agreement by Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered damages

including, but not limited to, the following: $314,012 for

products sold to Defendant; expenditure of more than $171,208 for

developing a product line; and approximately $55,431 for

Case 1:08-cv-00743-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/08 Page 2 of 12
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

3

promoting Plaintiff’s products.

Defendant’s Summary

1. While Defendant concedes that Plaintiff delivered

certain cosmetic products to Defendant in the year 2005, which

Defendant in turn sent to retail stores with the hope that the

products would be purchased by the public, there remains

considerable confusion as to the amount of the products sent by

Plaintiff to Defendant, what products were returned by Defendant

to Plaintiff, and what products the Plaintiff refused to take

back, after the products could not be sold at retail. The

parties did not have a written contract. Defendant contends that

the arrangement for sale of Plaintiff’s products was in the

nature of a consignment. Defendant received two separate types

of Plaintiff’s cosmetic products. These were placed in over one

hundred retail stores by Defendant, but the product was not

preferred by the public and little was purchased by the public. 

The more expensive product that could not be sold was later

returned by Defendant to Plaintiff, but Plaintiff refused to take

back the less expensive of the two products, and instead demanded

payment for same, in contravention of the arrangement between the

parties.

2. Defendant’s counsel has approached Plaintiff’s counsel,

seeking to determine if there are documents that could further

clarify the facts in this case, which might make a settlement

possible. 

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not anticipate amending the pleadings at

this time. The parties, if there are amendments, agree that a

Case 1:08-cv-00743-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/08 Page 3 of 12
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

4

deadline for any motion to amend the pleadings shall be filed on

or before December 12, 2008. 

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Plaintiff is a California limited liability

company having its principal place of business in Tulare County,

California.

2. Defendant is a Delaware corporation having its

principal place of business in the State of North Carolina.

B. Contested Facts.

1. Whether Defendant requested products from

Plaintiff.

2. Whether Plaintiff delivered products to Defendant.

3. Whether Plaintiff invoiced Defendant for products

delivered. 

4. Whether Plaintiff demanded payment for products

delivered to Defendant.

5. Whether Defendant paid for the products delivered.

6. Whether the parties entered into an agreement in

which Defendant agreed to pay for the products delivered.

7. Whether the parties entered into an agreement in

which Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff for a portion of the

profits from Defendant’s sale of the products.

8. Whether Plaintiff developed a product line for

sale by Defendant.

9. Whether the parties entered into an agreement in

which Defendant agreed to pay for the development of the product

Case 1:08-cv-00743-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/08 Page 4 of 12
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

5

line.

10. Whether the parties entered into an agreement in

which Defendant agreed to pay for promoting Plaintiff’s products.

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1367. 

2. The parties do not agree on the choice of

substantive law that governs this diversity action to provide the

rule of decision. If the parties are unable to agree, they

shall, by December 12, 2008, file a motion for the Court’s

determination of applicable choice of law in this diversity

action.

B. Contested. 

1. Whether venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).

2. Whether the claims are governed by California or

North Carolina law.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

Case 1:08-cv-00743-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/08 Page 5 of 12
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

6

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties shall make their initial disclosures under

Rule 26(a) on or before September 30, 2008. 

2. The parties jointly propose to the Court the following

discovery plan:

a. Depositions.

Pursuant to Rules 26(b)(2) and 30(a)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, and absent stipulation of the parties

or unless otherwise ordered by the Court, each party shall be

limited to ten (10) oral or written depositions taken under

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30 and 31. If any party

believes that any proposed discovery is burdensome, oppressive or

otherwise improper, that party shall have the burden of seeking a

protective order against the proposed discovery. The parties

shall make reasonable efforts to agree to dates for depositions.

b. Interrogatories.

Absent stipulation of the parties and unless otherwise

ordered by the Court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 shall

govern with respect to the maximum number of interrogatories to

be propounded by any party. If any party believes that any

proposed discovery is burdensome, oppressive or otherwise

improper, that party shall have the burden of seeking a

protective order against the proposed discovery.

c. Requests for Admission.

Absent stipulation of the parties or unless otherwise

ordered by the Court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 shall

govern with respect to the maximum number of requests for

admissions which may be propounded by any party. If any party

Case 1:08-cv-00743-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/08 Page 6 of 12
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

7

believes that any proposed discovery is burdensome, oppressive or

otherwise improper, that party shall have the burden of seeking a

protective order against the proposed discovery.

d. Requests for Production.

Absent stipulation of the parties or unless otherwise

ordered by the Court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 shall

govern with respect to the maximum number of requests for

production which may be propounded by any party. If any party

believes that any proposed discovery is burdensome, oppressive or

otherwise improper, that party shall have the burden of seeking a

protective order against the proposed discovery. 

3. The parties are ordered to complete all non-expert

discovery on or before May 15, 2009.

4. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before March 13, 2009. Any

supplemental or rebuttal expert disclosures will be made on or

before April 17, 2009. The parties will comply with the

provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding

their expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding,

the written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F.

R. Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all

information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

5. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery,

including experts, on or before June 12, 2009.

6. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

Case 1:08-cv-00743-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/08 Page 7 of 12
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

8

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before July 17, 2009, and

heard on August 21, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge

Dennis L. Beck in Courtroom 9. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than August 10, 2009, and will be heard on

September 14, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W.

Wanger, United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. 

In scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule

230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. October 19, 2009, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

Case 1:08-cv-00743-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/08 Page 8 of 12
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

9

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Motions - Hard Copy.

1. The parties shall submit one (1) courtesy paper copy to

the Court of any motions filed that exceed ten pages and any

motions that have exhibits attached. Exhibits shall be marked

with protruding numbered or lettered tabs so that the Court can

easily identify such exhibits. 

XIII. Trial Date.

1. December 1, 2009, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge. 

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 5 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIV. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for September 3,

2009, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 before the Honorable Dennis L.

Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. The parties shall notify

the courtroom deputy in the event that an early settlement

conference will be productive. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

Case 1:08-cv-00743-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/08 Page 9 of 12
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

10

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

Case 1:08-cv-00743-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/08 Page 10 of 12
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

11

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XVI. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

XVII. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVIII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

Case 1:08-cv-00743-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/08 Page 11 of 12
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

12

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 4, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00743-OWW -DLB Document 13 Filed 09/08/08 Page 12 of 12