Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03276/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03276-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2801 Petroleum Marketing Practices Act

---

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

CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 SSD & ASSOCIATES,

Defendant. /

No. C 05-03276 WHA

NOTICE RE ORAL ARGUMENT

For today’s closing argument, counsel may wish to address:

1) Does the trial record prove up Chevron’s claim that SSD defrauded the state by

underpaying sales taxes, or rather does the record show that the state was correctly paid and that

Chevron was overpaid (due to the inclusion of sales taxes in the EPOS reports)?

2) Is Reyes still fully good law? Is the mixed-motive analysis of Reyes still good?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03276-WHA Document 106 Filed 09/11/06 Page 1 of 1