Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02282/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02282-4/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

CHET & LEO PRODUCE CO., d/b/a C&L

PRODUCE, a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CASSANDRA, LLC d/b/a CENTRAL PARK

RESTAURANT, a California Limited Liability

Company, TIMOTHY M. CASS, an individual,

and SANDRA R. FREEMAN, an individual,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-02282 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON AUGUST 26, 2005:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at

the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the

citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance

on such authority. The parties shall not file written responses to the questions posed in this

notice.

Case 3:05-cv-02282-JSW Document 37 Filed 08/19/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

The Court tentatively finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and

tentatively denies Plaintiff’s request for limited discovery on that subject.

The parties shall have ten (10) minutes to answer the following questions.

1. Would Plaintiff concede that based on the evidence currently before the Court it

could not find that Defendants qualify as a “dealer” under PACA, i.e. that

Plaintiff has not demonstrated that there is conflicting evidence in the record

regarding subject matter jurisdiction? If not, can Plaintiff point the Court to a

particular invoice that shows Defendants purchased more than 2000 pounds of

produce in a given day?

2. If Plaintiff cannot show that Defendants qualify as a dealer in the first instance,

why does the Court need to reach the question of whether the “retailer” exception

applies?

3. a. Given the declarations from Defendants and the invoices that are already

in the record, the Court requests that Plaintiff provide a specific offer of

proof at the hearing as to the forms of discovery it wishes to obtain from

the Defendants, what facts it expects to adduce from that discovery, and

Plaintiff’s basis for believing it would adduce such facts.

b. The Court assumes that Defendants would object to Plaintiff’s request for

discovery, yet Defendants have raised a factual attack to Plaintiff’s

assertion of subject matter jurisdiction. Assuming the Court were to find

there are conflicting facts in the record, do Defendants have any authority

to suggest that the Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s request for discovery,

especially in light of the fact that Defendants have not yet answered the

complaint? See, e.g., St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 202 (9th

Cir. 1989).

Dated: August 19, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02282-JSW Document 37 Filed 08/19/05 Page 2 of 2