Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05278/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05278-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1335 Interpleader Action

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASTLE & COOKE MADERA, INC.,

CASTLE & COOKE CALIFORNIA, INC.,

AG 1970, INC., AG 1971, INC.;

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MACKENZIE PATTERSON FULLER,

INC.; SUTTER OPPORTUNITY FUND 3,

LLC; MP FALCON FUND, LLC; MP

FALCON GROWTH FUND 2, LLC; 

MPF DEWAAY PREMIER FUND LLC; MP

INCOME FUND 17, LLC; MPF INCOME

FUND 20, LLC; MP INCOME FUND

12, LP; MP VALUE FUND 6, LLC; 

MACKENZIE PATTERSON SPECIAL

FUND 6, LLC; MACKENZIE PATTERSON

SPECIAL FUND 6-A, LLC; MACKENZIE

PATTERSON SPECIAL FUND 7, LLC; 

ACCELERATED HIGH YIELD

INSTITUTIONAL FUND, LTD, LP; 

ACCELERATED HIGH YIELD

INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS, LTD,

LP; MACKENZIE SPECIFIED INCOME

FUND, LP; LEON G. FETERL and

MARILYN R. FETERL, trustees of the LEON

G. FETERL LIVING TRUST;

CHRISTOPHER HAYES; WALTER HAYES

III; BARBARA J. HERROLD; LASALLE

NATIONAL TRUST, executor of the ESTATE

OF LILA RADWAY; ALEX DONNER; 

JOHN L. FRENCH, personal representative of

the ESTATE OF HOWARD H. FITZGERALD

II; ANCHOR TRUST, trustee of the ROBERT

E. HAUGAN REVOCABLE TRUST; 

GREGORY J. GUGGEMOS, trustee of the

WILBUR C. HERBST TRUST; JOHN

No. C 05-05278 WHA

REQUEST 

Case 3:05-cv-05278-WHA Document 73 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

MARSHALL; GWEN P. THOMPSON, 

personal representative of the estate of

DAGMAR B. NEWSTROM; ANN

KATHLEEN PETERS; PARAMOUNT

COFFEE CO., INC.; MARTIN

SCHLISSBERG, trustee of the ISF/PCC

TRUST PARAMOUNT COFFEE CO, INC.; 

and DOES 1–10,

Defendants. /

Certain parties in this action recently stipulated that the petition for an order compelling

arbitration and staying litigation made by MacKenzie Patterson Fuller, Inc. and defendants

related to it constituted a timely response to the cross-claim against them. They ask the Court to

order that the petition is such a timely response. 

The petition was filed before the cross-claim. How then can it be a response to the

cross-claim? Also, it is unclear if defendants mean “answer” when they talk about a “response”

to the cross-claim. An answer is the pleading that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(a) requires

in response to a cross-claim. 

The parties who signed onto the stipulation are REQUESTED TO CLARIFY THESE

POINTS. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05278-WHA Document 73 Filed 04/03/06 Page 2 of 2