Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03562/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03562-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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-

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO

DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A STAY

Gordon &

Rees LLP

E

mbarcadero Center West

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, C

A 94111

BRIAN P. MASCHLER (SBN: 111824)

JOY A. JAEGER (SBN: 232637)

GORDON & REES LLP

Embarcadero Center West

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 986-5900

Facsimile: (415) 986-8054

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SCOTT SALYER, individually, and as

Trustee of the Scott Salyer Revocable

Trust

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(SAN JOSE DIVISION)

SCOTT SALYER, individually, and as 

Trustee of the Scott Salyer Revocable 

Trust,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SALYER AMERICAN FRESH FOODS; 

FRED SALYER; LINDA SALYER LEE, 

individually and as Trustee of the Linda 

Salyer Lee Revocable Trust; THOMAS 

WELCH; DONALD BLODGETT; and 

LAWRENCE RYAN,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-3562 JW

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF 

COURT TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION 

TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, 

FOR A STAY

Hearing Date: February 27, 2006

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Judge: Honorable James Ware

Pursuant to Rule 7-4(d) of the Civil Local Rules for the Northern District of California, 

Plaintiff, Scott Salyer, individually, and as Trustee of the Scott Salyer Revocable Trust

(“Plaintiff”), hereby requests the Court’s approval to file supplemental briefing (a “Surreply”) in 

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Stay this Action. This

supplemental briefing would not exceed seven (7) pages in length and would be filed on or 

before 12:00 p.m. on February 21, 2006 (February 20 is a Court holiday). The hearing date on 

SKFO\1033887\927629.1

Case 5:05-cv-03562-JW Document 34 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

GRANTED

Judge James Ware

Case 5:05-cv-03562-JW Document 36 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 3
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-

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO

DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A STAY

Gordon &

Rees LLP

E

mbarcadero Center West

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, C

A 94111

this Motion is February 27, 2006. Defendants’ Reply is due today (February 13, 2006). Good 

cause exists for permitting Plaintiff to file this supplemental briefing in that: 

1. Based upon the Court’s Order Continuing the Hearing on this Motion from 

December 19, 2005 to February 27, 2006, Defendants have had two and a half months to 

prepare and file their Reply Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, 

for a Stay. The Court issued this Scheduling Order on November 29, 2005 -- the very day after 

Plaintiff had filed his Opposition, in a timely manner, to Defendants’ Motion.

2. On December 2, 2005, Plaintiff, citing the briefing schedule that had resulted 

from the Court’s November 29, 2005 Order, filed a Request for Clarification of said Order. (A

true and correct copy of this Request for Clarification is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration 

of Brian P. Maschler). 

3. The Court denied Plaintiff’s Request for Clarification. Thus, per Civil Local Rule 

7-3(c), Defendants’ reply papers were due on February 13, 2006, rather than on December 5, 

2005, when the Reply would have been due under the original hearing schedule. Judge Ware’s 

clerk, in notifying Plaintiff’s counsel of the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s Request for 

Clarification, noted that one avenue of recourse would be to seek leave to file a surreply.

4. On February 13, 2006, before Plaintiff’s counsel had received Defendants’ reply 

papers, Plaintiff’s counsel requested of defense counsel, Ms. Rebecca Connolly of Grunsky, 

Ebey, Farrar & Howell, that Defendants stipulate to the supplemental briefing requested herein. 

Defendants’ counsel refused, stating that “we [plaintiff] would just have to file an application [to 

the Court].” Defense counsel gave no explanation for their refusal.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 5:05-cv-03562-JW Document 34 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 2 of 3
 Case 5:05-cv-03562-JW Document 36 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 3
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-

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE SURREPLY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO

DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A STAY

Gordon &

Rees LLP

E

mbarcadero Center West

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, C

A 94111

7. In view of the foregoing, and the fact that Defendants’ Motion is a dispositive 

motion, the supplemental briefing requested herein is both fair and reasonable. 

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: February 13, 2006 GORDON & REES LLP

By:______/s/____ ________

BRIAN P. MASCHLER

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SCOTT SALYER, individually, and SCOTT 

SALYER, as Trustee of the Scott Salyer 

Revocable Trust

Case 5:05-cv-03562-JW Document 34 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 3 of 3

Plaintiff's request is granted. The hearing date is continued from February 27 to March 13, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. dated: February 17, 2006

Case 5:05-cv-03562-JW Document 36 Filed 02/17/06 Page 3 of 3