Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06706/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06706-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

{6063/030/00216371.DOC} 1 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESOLVE DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO FLYING J’S RESPONSE S TO 

DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

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

SAGASER, JONES & HELSLEY

2445 Capitol Street, 2nd Floor 

Post Office Box 1632 

Fresno, California 93717-1632 

Telephone: (559) 233-4800 

Facsimile: (559) 233-9330

Timothy Jones #119841 

John P. Kinsey #215916 

LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM C. HAHESY

6715 North Palm Avenue, Suite 214 

Fresno, California 93717-1632 

Telephone: (559) 579-1230 

Facsimile: (559) 579-1231 

William C. Hahesy #105743 

Attorneys for: Defendants John R. Lawson and John R. Lawson Rock & Oil, Inc., 

a California Corporation 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FLYING J, INC., a Utah Corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

THOMAS PISTACCHIO, an individual, 

DELORES PISTACCHIO, an individual, 

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA KENWORTH, 

a California corporation, JOHN R. 

LAWSON, an individual; JOHN R. 

LAWSON ROCK & OIL, INC., a 

California Corporation. 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 1:03-CV-06706 OWW LJO 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

RESOLVE (1) OBJECTION AND 

REQUEST TO STRIKE BY 

DEFENDANTS JOHN R. LAWSON 

AND JOHN R. LAWSON ROCK & 

OIL, INC. TO NEW EVIDENCE 

SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF FLYING 

J, INC. IN CONNECTION WITH 

OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE IN 

SUPPORT OF FLYING J, INC.’S 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO 

DISMISS, ABSTAIN, AND STRIKE, 

AND (2) PISTACCHIO DEFENDANTS’ 

OBJECTION TO AND MOTION TO 

STRIKE NEW EVIDENCE 

SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF FLYING 

J, INC. 

 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:03-cv-06706-OWW -GSA Document 160 Filed 10/23/07 Page 1 of 4
{6063/030/00216371.DOC} 2 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESOLVE DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO FLYING J’S RESPONSE S TO 

DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

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

 WHEREAS on December 18, 2006, Defendants Thomas Pistacchio, Delores 

Pistacchio, and Central California Kenworth (the “Pistacchio Defendants”) filed (1) a motion 

to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) a motion to 

dismiss and/or abstain pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 

(3) a motion to strike and/or dismiss all claims pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, 

Section 425.16 (the “Pistacchio Motions”); 

 WHEREAS on December 21, 2006, Defendants John R. Lawson and John R. 

Lawson Rock & Oil (the “Lawson Defendants”) filed (1) a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) a motion to dismiss and/or abstain 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and (3) a motion to strike 

and/or dismiss all claims pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 425.16 (the 

“Lawson Motions”); 

 WHEREAS the Lawson Defendants and the Pistacchio Defendants are herein 

collectively referred to as “Defendants.” 

WHEREAS in opposing the Pistacchio Motions and the Lawson Motions, 

Plaintiff Flying J, Inc. (“Flying J”), submitted an initial Declaration of Matthew S. Urbach, 

along with certain exhibits, on August 6, 2007 (the “First Urbach Declaration”). 

 WHEREAS the Pistacchio Defendants and the Lawson Defendants submitted 

their reply briefing, including separate objections to the First Urbach Declaration and the 

exhibits attached thereto (“Defendants’ Original Evidentiary Objections”). 

 WHEREAS the parties subsequently entered into a stipulation relating to the 

filing of a sur-reply brief by Flying J on limited collateral estoppel issues, and also setting a 

deadline for Flying J to file responses to Defendants’ Original Evidentiary Objections. 

 WHEREAS Flying J submitted evidence attached to the Second Supplemental 

Declaration of Matthew S. Urbach in support of Flying J’s responses to Defendants’ Original 

Evidentiary Objections (the “Second Supplemental Urbach Declaration”). 

 WHEREAS on October 3, 2007, the Lawson Defendants submitted Objection 

and Request to Strike by Defendants John R. Lawson and John R. Lawson Rock & Oil, Inc. to 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:03-cv-06706-OWW -GSA Document 160 Filed 10/23/07 Page 2 of 4
{6063/030/00216371.DOC} 3 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESOLVE DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO FLYING J’S RESPONSE S TO 

DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

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

New Evidence Submitted by Plaintiff Flying J, Inc. in Connection with Objections to Evidence 

in Support of Flying J, Inc.’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, Abstain, and Strike, wherein 

the Lawson Defendants objected to the evidence attached to the Second Supplemental Urbach 

Declaration (the “Lawson Defendants’ Supplemental Evidentiary Objections”). 

 WHEREAS on October 5, 2007, the Pistacchio Defendants submitted Objection 

to and Motion to Strike New Evidence Submitted by Plaintiff Flying J, Inc., wherein the 

Pistacchio Defendants objected to the evidence attached to the Second Supplemental Urbach 

Declaration (the “Pistacchio Defendants’ Supplemental Evidentiary Objections”). 

 WHEREAS the parties have met and conferred in an attempt to resolve the 

issues raised in the Lawson Defendants’ Supplemental Evidentiary Objections, the Pistacchio 

Defendants’ Supplemental Evidentiary Objections, and the Second Supplemental Urbach 

Declaration, in an attempt to narrow the issues for resolution by the Court. 

 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the Lawson Defendants, the 

Pistacchio Defendants, and Flying J, through their respective counsel, as follows: 

1. The evidence attached to the Second Supplemental Urbach Declaration in 

support of Flying J’s responses to Defendants’ Original Evidentiary Objections shall only be 

considered in connection with the Defendants’ Original Evidentiary Objections to the First 

Urbach Declaration, and shall not be considered as support for any other issue. 

2. Based on the stipulation of the parties set forth in the preceding paragraph 

(paragraph 1) the Lawson Defendants’ Supplemental Evidentiary Objections and the Pistacchio 

Defendants’ Supplemental Evidentiary Objections are hereby withdrawn. 

DATED: October 19, 2007 MANATT PHELPS AND PHILLIPS LLP 

By: /s/ Matthew S. Urbach 

 Matthew S. Urbach, 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff Flying J, Inc. 

(Signatures continued on the following page) 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:03-cv-06706-OWW -GSA Document 160 Filed 10/23/07 Page 3 of 4
{6063/030/00216371.DOC} 4 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESOLVE DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO FLYING J’S RESPONSE S TO 

DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 

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

DATED: October 22, 2007 SAGASER, JONES & HELSLEY

By: /s/ John P. Kinsey 

John P. Kinsey, Attorneys for Defendants 

John R. Lawson and John R. Lawson Rock 

& Oil, Inc. 

DATED: October 22, 2007 BAKER KEENER AND NAHRA

By: /s/ Daniel Patrick Leonard 

Daniel Patrick Leonard, Attorneys for 

Defendants Thomas Pistacchio, Delores 

Pistacchio, and Central Calif. Kenworth 

ORDER

 The Court having reviewed the foregoing Stipulation, and good cause appearing 

therefor: 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Lawson Defendants’ Supplemental 

Evidentiary Objections and the Pistacchio Defendants’ Supplemental Evidentiary Objections 

are resolved as follows: 

1. The evidence attached to the Second Supplemental Urbach Declaration in 

support of Flying J’s responses to Defendants’ Original Evidentiary Objections shall only be 

considered in connection with Defendants’ Original Evidentiary Objections to the First Urbach 

Declaration, and shall not be considered as support for any other issue. 

2. Based on the stipulation of the parties set forth above, the Lawson Defendants’ 

Supplemental Evidentiary Objections and the Pistacchio Defendants’ Supplemental 

Evidentiary Objections are deemed withdrawn.. 

DATED: October 22, 2007 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER 

Honorable Oliver W. Wanger 

United States District Judge 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 1:03-cv-06706-OWW -GSA Document 160 Filed 10/23/07 Page 4 of 4