Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02220/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02220-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 07:499 Agricultural Commodities 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISTAR CORPORATION, a Colorado

corporation,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SIERRA VALLEY RESTAURANTS, INC.,

a corporation doing business as

Jack in the Box; CENTRAL VALLEY

FOODSERVICE, INC., a corporation

doing business as Jack in the

Box; FOODSERVICE MANAGEMENT,

INC., a corporation doing

business as Jack in the Box;

KOBRA ASSOCIATES, INC., a

corporation doing business as

Jack in the Box; and ABE

ALIZADEH, an individual, 

 Defendants,

NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA, 

 Intervenor.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:09-cv-02220-GEB-GGH

ORDER

Counsel for Intervenor National Bank of Arizona (“NBA”) and

Defendant Abe Alizadeh (“Alizadeh”) were issued an Order to Show Cause

(“OSC”) on May 11, 2011 for failing to file a joint final pretrial

statement. (ECF No. 84.) NBA and Alizadeh filed an amended joint

response to the OSC on May 16, 2011, in which they state, inter alia: 

Defendant Alizadeh and Intervenor NBA . . .

fail[ed] to submit the pre-trial statement . . .

because of confusion resulting from the Notice of

Filing of Bankruptcy and Stay ([ECF] No. 46) of the

Case 2:09-cv-02220-TLN-AC Document 89 Filed 05/18/11 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

corporate defendants . . . and the [Stipulated

Judgment] entered by the Court on March 10, 2011.

Alizadeh and NBA both believed that those stays and

[Stipulated Judgment] precluded NBA’s Complaint-InIntervention from proceeding to trial.

[NBA’s] Complaint-In-Intervention only asserted

claims against [Plaintiff]. Specifically, NBA

sought declaratory relief regarding [Plaintiff] and

NBA’s competing security interests in the assets of

the corporate defendants, and for injunctive relief

against [Plaintiff] enjoining it from taking

possession of those assets. 

Subsequent to the filing of NBA’s ComplaintIn-Intervention, each of the corporate defendants

initiated bankruptcy proceedings, thereby staying

any litigation regarding their assets. NBA and

Alizadeh both believed that stay applied to NBA’s

Complaint-In-Intervention against [Plaintiff], as

any determination by this Court regarding interests

in the corporate defendants’ assets could open the

door to conflicting judgments in the bankruptcy

proceeding. Consequently, neither NBA or Alizadeh

believed there was a claim involving NBA that was

to be addressed in the pretrial conference.

On March 10, 2011, the Court entered a

stipulated judgment that resolved all claims

between [Plaintiff] and Alizadeh, concluding that

“[t]he Court can find no just reason for delaying

entry of final judgment against Alizadeh as

stipulated to by [Plaintiff] and Alizadeh, as all

of the remaining defendants are in bankruptcy.”

Alizadeh and NBA both understood the [Stipulated

Judgment] to mean there was nothing further to

proceed to trial because of the corporate

defendants’ bankruptcies. 

(ECF No. 87, 2:4-3:2 (citations omitted).) 

Despite the suggestion to the contrary in the amended joint

response to the OSC, NBA never filed its Complaint-in-Intervention after

its Motion to Intervene was granted on September 2, 2009. NBA only filed

a proposed Complaint-in-Intervention on August 25, 2009, as an exhibit

to its Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time and Setting of

Hearing on its Motion to Intervene. (ECF No. 31-1.) Therefore, if NBA

Case 2:09-cv-02220-TLN-AC Document 89 Filed 05/18/11 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

1 NBA did not file an opposition or statement of non-opposition

to Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Summary Judgment against Alizadeh (ECF

No. 77) or NBA and Alizadeh’s Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (ECF No.

79). NBA also did not appear at the March 7, 2011 hearing on these

proceedings. 

3

desires to file the referenced proposed Complaint-In-Intervention, it

must do so by 4:00 p.m. on May 23, 2011. 

Further, NBA’s representations in the amended joint response

to the OSC indicate that NBA believes it had a right to object to

Plaintiff and Alizadeh’s Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, failed to do

so and are now precluded from doing so since the Stipulated Judgment was

entered.1 In light of NBA’s position, the only pending claims in this

action are subject to the bankruptcy stay. Therefore, all dates in this

action are vacated. Each party is required to file a Status Report

notifying this court within five days once the bankruptcy stay is

lifted.

Dated: May 17, 2011

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:09-cv-02220-TLN-AC Document 89 Filed 05/18/11 Page 3 of 3