Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01163/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01163-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

E & N ENTERPRISES, LLC, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

CALICHE’S, INC., et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

)

AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS )

____________________________________)

CV F 06 1163 AWI LJO

PRETRIAL ORDER

Motions In Limine Hearing and

Trial Confirmation:

May 5, 2008

1:30 p.m., Courtroom 2

 

Trial: May 13, 2008

8:30 a.m., Courtroom 2

RULES OF CONDUCT

The pretrial conference was held on April 2, 2008. The trial in this matter is set for May

13, 2008. The parties currently estimate that the trial shall take three to five days.

I. Jurisdiction and Venue

Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this court. Jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1332 (diversity). There is no dispute between the parties concerning jurisdiction or venue.

II. Jury Trial

All parties demand a jury trial.

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 1 of 25
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

III. Facts

A. Undisputed Facts

1. On or about June 7, 2004, Caliche’s, Inc. (“CALICHE’S”) and E & N Enterprises,

LLC (“E&N”) entered into a Franchise Agreement for the operation of a frozen custard restaurant 

at 5420 North Blackstone, Fresno, California.

2. Plaintiff was required to pay a franchise fee of $50,000, and pursuant to the terms

of the parties’ Franchise Agreement was to pay 4% of gross sales by Plaintiff to CALICHE’S,

INC. 

3. The Franchise Agreement required the following: 

a.. That CROSS-DEFENDANTS make royalty payments to CALICHE’S

pursuant to Paragraph 3.D of the Franchise Agreement;

b. CROSS-DEFENDANTS to submit financial reports as required by

Paragraph 4.A of the Franchise Agreement;

c. CROSS-DEFENDANTS to comply with the prescribed standards and

policies for the System as required by Paragraph 1.C;

d. CROSS-DEFENDANTS are not to open a new unit which would be in

violation of Paragraph 2.A;

e. CROSS-DEFENDANTS to pay royalty fees to CALICHE’S on time on all

gross receipts and pay interest on all past due royalty fees;

f. CROSS-DEFENDANTS to provide the fiscal year-end reports required by

Paragraph 4.A, and provide copies of tax returns as required by Paragraph 4.A;

g. CROSS-DEFENDANTS to complete initial training as required by

Paragraph 7.A;

h. CROSS-DEFENDANTS to pay for additional training, as required by

Paragraph 7.B;

i. CROSS-DEFENDANTS to complete the new-manager training that

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 25
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

Caliche’s required pursuant to Paragraph 7.C;

j. CROSS-DEFENDANTS to satisfy the requirements for grand opening

advertising and ongoing advertising as described in Paragraphs 9.A and 9.B;

k. CROSS-DEFENDANTS to comply with the System, as described in

Paragraphs 10.A (daily operations), 10.E (hours of operation), 10.F (adequate supplies and

personnel), 10.G (uniforms) and 10.H (food products);

l. CROSS-DEFENDANTS to provide evidence of insurance renewal as

required by Paragraph 11.C;

m. CROSS-DEFENDANTS prohibited from operating competing interests as

provided in Paragraph 14.A;

n. CROSS-DEFENDANTS to adhere to non-compete prohibition contained

in Paragraph 14.B;

o. CROSS-DEFENDANTS to adhere to prohibition on appropriation of the

System contained in Paragraph 14.C;

p. CROSS-DEFENDANTS to adhere to prohibition on disclosure contained

in Paragraph 14.D; and

q. CROSS-DEFENDANTS to comply with the acknowledgments stated in

Paragraphs 31.B (no additional units), 31.C (single location), 31.E (external promises) and 31.K

(licensed marks).

4. On or about January 22, 2004, Norma Fausone (“FAUSONE”) and CALICHE’S

entered into a written Non-Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreement pursuant to which they

agreed upon the terms and conditions under which FAUSONE would receive access to

confidential information relating to the operation of a Caliche’s Frozen Custard Restaurant.

5. On or about April 3, 2006, CALICHE’S requested that E&N perform its

obligations under the Franchise Agreement.

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 3 of 25
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 4

B. Disputed Facts

1. The total amount E&N paid in surcharges for boxes of custard mix;

2. Whether Defendants violated California Corporations Code § 31110;

3. Whether Defendants failed to register the offer with the California Commissioner

of Corporations before offering it to Plaintiff;

4. Whether Defendants made misrepresentations, concealed information, or failed to

perform their obligations;

5. Whether Defendants violated Corporations Code § 31110;

6. Whether said violation was willful;

7. The extent of Plaintiff's damages;

8. Whether at all times mentioned in the Complaint, B. DAVID WORTHAM

directly or indirectly controlled CALICHE’S and DANA WORTHAM;

9. Whether DANA WORTHAM is jointly and severally liable pursuant to

Corporations Code § 31302;

10. Whether Defendants are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff;

11. Whether Plaintiff rescinded the Agreement on or about April 11, 2006;

12. Whether CALICHE’S is authorized to do and is doing business in California;

13. Whether the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.00;

14. The course and scope of agency, employment and/or joint venture, if any, between

COUNTER-DEFENDANTS;

15. Whether CALICHE’S has performed, or was excused from performing, all

conditions, covenants and promises required on its part to be performed in accordance with the

terms and conditions of the Agreement;

16. Assuming a breach of the Agreement by E&N, the nature and extent of said

breach;

17. The extent of Cross-Complainant’s damages;

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 4 of 25
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 5

18. Whether CALICHE’S violated the Franchise Investment Act of the State of

California;

19. Whether E&N breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with

respect to CALICHE’S and the Franchise Agreement;

20. Whether CALICHE’S is entitled to attorney’s fees with respect the

Cross-Complaint;

21. Whether FAUSONE opening a competing frozen yogurt store was a breach of a

Non-Competition Agreement between FAUSONE and CALICHE’S;

22. The extent of Defendant’s damages from FAUSONE opening a frozen yogurt

store;

23. Whether CALICHE’S is entitled to terminate the Franchise Agreement because of

E&N’s alleged conduct;

24. Whether E&N has a right to operate a CALICHE’S franchise;

25. Whether the Franchise Agreement should be terminated through a declaratory

judgment;

26. Whether CALICHE’S will suffer great and irreparable injury unless E&N and

FAUSONE are enjoined and restrained by order of the Court from engaging in their activities;

27. Whether CALICHE’S has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries currently

being suffered.

28. In or about June of 2004, FAUSONE opened a frozen custard restaurant at 785

West Herndon Avenue, in Clovis, California, with a menu similar to that of the CALICHE’S

franchise operated by E&N, but utilizing the name California Frozen Custard or, alternatively,

“Calli’s.”

C. Disputed Evidentiary Issues

a. Disputed Evidentiary Issues Anticipated by PLAINTIFF

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 5 of 25
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 6

PLAINTIFF presently anticipates the following evidentiary issues. PLAINTIFF

reserves objections on evidence DEFENDANTS may try to submit into evidence.

b. Disputed Evidentiary Issues Anticipated by DEFENDANTS

1. Preclude any party from arguing or introducing any oral or written

evidence or testimony concerning any settlement offers or negotiations between the parties or

their attorneys. 

2. Preclude any argument, testimony or evidence of CALICHE’S alleged

failure to register the franchise offer with the California Commissioner of Corporations before

offering it to E&N.

3. Preclude any argument, testimony or evidence of

CROSS-DEFENDANTS’.

4. Preclude any mention or evidence concerning any other litigation

involving any of the DEFENDANTS.

5. Exclude non-party witnesses from the courtroom before they testify and

are excused as witnesses.

6. Exclude mention of the wealth of the parties. 

7. Exclude all evidence, documents or witnesses (lay and expert) not

disclosed by PLAINTIFF in discovery, including but not limited to any evidence, argument and

testimony related to documents first disclosed and produced on February 23, 2008

(OA00254-289) and February 25, 2008. 

D. Special Factual Information

The special factual information required by Local Rule 16-218(6) is specified above,

where appropriate, in either the undisputed facts or disputed factual issues sections. (See, supra,

Sections III and IV). Additional factual information is provided below in connection with the

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 6 of 25
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 7

parties respective sections concerning Points of Law.

IV. Relief Sought

A. Relief Sought by PLAINTIFF

The following is a concise summary of the damages that PLAINTIFF seeks: Return of all

franchise fees paid to DEFENDANTS, damages and attorney fees.

B. Relief Sought by CALICHE’S

For damages to be determined at trial due to CROSS-DEFENDANTS’ breaches of the

Franchise Agreement and Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement, which CALICHE’S

believes exceeds $2,500 per month. Moreover, CALICHE’S also seeks an award of its

contractual attorneys fees pursuant to the written agreements in this action. 

V. Points of Law

A. Plaintiff’s Contentions

DEFENDANTS willfully offered and sold the franchise to PLAINTIFF in violation of

Corporations Code §§ 31110, 31119, 31200 and 31202. DEFENDANTS are subject to

rescission and damages pursuant to Corporations Code §§ 31300 and 31302.

B. Defendants’ Contentions

Breach of Franchise Agreement

As part of the Franchise Agreement between CALICHE’S and PLAINTIFF, there was

implied under California law a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which required that

PLAINTIFF act in good faith toward and deal fairly with CALICHE’S, and further that

PLAINTIFF refrain from doing anything that would injure the right of CALICHE’S to receive

the benefits of the Franchise Agreement and to do every act reasonable, fair and necessary to

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 7 of 25
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 8

accomplish the purposes of the Franchise Agreement.

PLAINTIFF breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by engaging in

the conduct alleged above herein. As a direct and proximate result of said breaches of the

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, CALICHE’S has suffered damages.

Breach of Non-Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreement

On or about January 22, 2004, CROSS-DEFENDANT FAUSONE and CALICHE’S

entered into a written Non-Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreement pursuant to which they

agreed upon the terms and conditions under which CROSS-DEFENDANT FAUSONE would

receive access to confidential information relating to the operation of a Caliche’s Frozen Custard

Restaurant. CALICHE’S has performed all conditions, covenants and promises required on its

part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Non-Competition

Agreement except to the extent that the performance of such conditions, covenants and promises

was excused by virtue of the acts, omissions and/or conduct of FAUSONE.

In or about June of 2004, FAUSONE breached the Non-Competition Agreement by

opening a frozen custard restaurant at 785 West Herndon Avenue, in Clovis, California, with a

menu similar to that of the CALICHE’S franchise operated by PLAINTIFF, but utilizing the

name California Frozen Custard or, alternatively, “Calli’s.” As a result of FAUSONE’s breach

of the Non-Competition Agreement, CALICHE’S has been damaged in an amount which has not

yet been fully ascertained but which CALICHE’S is informed and believes exceeds $2,500 per

month commencing with the opening of the frozen custard restaurant in violation of the

Non-Competition Agreement and continuing thereafter.

CALICHE’S Did Not Violate any Laws or the Franchise Agreement

Contrary to any allegations by PLAINTIFF, CALICHE’S did not violate any laws by

willfully failing to register the franchise offer with the California Commissioner of Corporations

before offering it to E&N. Moreover, assuming the same is somehow true, PLAINTFF has failed

to point to any resulting damages sustained from said failure. During the deposition of NORMA

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 8 of 25
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 9

FAUSONE, the PMK of PLAINTIFF, and PLAINTIFF’s managing owner, she was unable to

identify any damages which were the result of CALICHE’S alleged failure to offer. During the

pre-trial conference in this matter, CALICHE’S has invited PLAINTIFF’s counsel to identify

what these alleged damages were, and how they correlate to the alleged failure to offer.

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

The Franchise Agreement provides that in the event litigation is required to enforce the

terms thereof, the prevailing party is entitled to its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. As a

direct and proximate result of PLAINTIFF’s and COUNTER-DEFENDANTS’ breach of the

Franchise Agreement, CALICHE’S has been required to obtain the legal services of McCormick,

Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth, LLP and is, therefore, entitled to its costs and reasonable

attorneys’ fees in an amount according to proof as against COUNTER-DEFENDANTS.

VI. Abandoned Issues

The parties are aware of no abandoned issues, nor do they currently intend to abandon any

issues.

VII. Witnesses

The following is a list of witnesses that the parties expect to call at trial, including

rebuttal and impeachment witnesses. NO WITNESS, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS

SECTION, MAY BE CALLED AT TRIAL UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON

A SHOWING THAT THIS ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST

INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 16-281(b)(10).

A. Plaintiffs’ Witnesses

1. Paul Fausone;

2. Norma Fausone;

3. Ernest Flores; and

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 9 of 25
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 10

4. Maria Flores

B. Defendants’ Witnesses

1. B. David Wortham, CEO of Caliche’s Inc. Caliche’s Inc., 131 Roadrunner

Parkway, Las Cruces, NM 88011; 

2. Don Ettinger, Caliche’s Inc. Business Consultant, Caliche’s Inc., 131 Roadrunner

Parkway, Las Cruces, NM 88011;

3. Dana Wortham, officer of Caliche’s Inc., Caliche’s Inc., 131 Roadrunner

Parkway, Las Cruces, NM 88011;

4. Ernest A. Flores, President of E&N Enterprises, LLC, E&N Enterprises, LLC,

1021 W. Magill Ave., Fresno, CA 93711;

5. Cross-Defendant Norma Fausone;

6. Justin A. Horwitz, Caliche’s, Inc.’s counsel with respect to Franchise

Registration, Sutin Thayer & Browne, 6565 Americas Parkway, N.E., Suite 1000, Albuquerque,

NM 87110; and 

7. Jeannie E. Tanaka, Corporations Counsel, California Department of Corporations,

320 West 4th Street, Suite No. 750, Los Angeles, California 90013-2344

VIII. Exhibits

The following is a list of documents or other exhibits that the parties expect to offer at

trial. NO EXHIBIT, OTHER THAN THOSE LISTED IN THIS SECTION, MAY BE

ADMITTED UNLESS THE PARTIES STIPULATE OR UPON A SHOWING THAT THIS

ORDER SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PREVENT “MANIFEST INJUSTICE.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(e); Local Rule 16-281(b)(11).

A. Plaintiffs’ Exhibits

1. Non-Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreement

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 10 of 25
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 11

2. General Agreement dated January 31, 2003

3. January 17, 2006 letter to Ms. Fausone from Caliche’s

4. April 11, 2006 letter to Caliche’s legal counsel from Lescoulie

5. Caliche’s Franchise Registration Application

6. March 19, 2004 letter from Caliche’s legal counsel fo Department of Corporation

7. Franchise Offering Circular

8. Order Declaring Effectiveness of Registration with Transmittal letter

9. December 30, 2003 letter to Department of Corporation

B. Caliche’s Exhibits

1. Agreement between Caliche’s Inc. and E&N Enterprises dated June 21, 2004

(Bates Nos. C 00013 through C 00014) [Fausone Depo. Ex. C]

2. Caliche’s Franchise Agreement dated June 7, 2004 [Bates No. C 00015 through C

00039] [Fausone Depo. Ex. C]

3. Caliche’s Franchise Offering Circular dated May 24, 2004 [Bates Nos. C 00040

through C00041] [Fausone Depo. Ex. C]

4. Information for Prospective Franchisees Required by Federal Trade Commission

Bates Nos. C 00042 through C 00046] [Fausone Depo. Ex. C]

5. Letter from Jay Rosenblum to Donald P. Lescoulie requesting to perform

obligations under the Franchise Agreement dated April 3, 2006 (Bates Nos. C 00047 through C

00048) [Fausone Depo. Ex. C]

6. Non-Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreement between Norma A. Fausone

and Caliche’s Inc. dated January 22, 2004 [Bates Nos. C 00049 through C 00051] [Fausone

Depo. Ex. C]

7. General Agreement between Dr. Ernesto Flores and Spanky’s Inc. dated January

31, 2003 [Fausone Depo. Ex. F]

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 11 of 25
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 12

8. Email from Kevin Conroy to Paul Fausone dated February 4, 2003 re franchise

info. [Fausone Depo. Ex. G]

9. Letter from Don Ettinger, Director of Franchising for Caliche’s to Norma Fausone

dated January 17, 2006 [Fausone Depo. Ex. H]

10. Letter from Don Ettinger, Director of Franchising for Caliche’s to Norma Fausone

dated October 18, 2005 [Fausone Depo. Ex. I]

11. Letter from Jay D. Rosenblum to Donald P. Lescoulie dated April 3, 2006

[Fausone Depo. Ex. J]

12. Letter from Donald P. Lescoulie to Jay D. Rosenblum dated April 11, 2006 (Bates

No. C 0002) [Fausone Depo. Ex. K]

13. Facsimile transmission cover sheet from Sarita Nair to David Wortham dated

April 12, 2006 attaching letter from Don Lescoulie to Jay Rosenblum dated April 11, 2006

regarding rescinding agreement (Bates Nos. C 00001-C 00002)

14. E&N Overdue Royalty Actual and Projected Royalty with Late Fee Fresno Store

Location April 2006 through July 2006 (Bates Nos. C 00003-C 00007)

15. Facsimile transmission cover sheet from Sarita Nair to Don Ettinger dated April 6,

2006 attaching letter from Jay Rosenblum to Don Lescoulie dated April 6, 2006 regarding

franchise agreement (Bates Nos. C 00008-C 00010)

16. Letter from Department of Corporations to Justin Horwitz dated May 24, 2004

attaching Order Declaration Effectiveness of Registration for Caliche’s Inc. 

17. Letter from Justin Horwitz to California Department of Corporations regarding

enclosing California Franchise Registration materials dated December 30, 2003 (Bates Nos. C

00052-C 00053)

18. California Uniform Franchise Registration Application (Bates No. C 00054) 

19. Supplemental Information (Bates No. C 00055)

20. Certification signed by Caliche’s on December 23, 2003 (Bates No. C 00056)

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 12 of 25
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 13

21. Uniform Consent to Service of Process dated December 23, 2003 (Bates No. C

00057) 

22. Corporate Acknowledgement dated December 23, 2003 (Bates No. C 00058) 

23. State of California Sales Agent Disclosure Form (Bates No. C 00059) 

24. Consent of Independent Accountants dated December 24, 2003 (Bates No. C

00060)

25. Scoopy’s Inc. Complied Financial Statements for Years ended December 31, 2001

and 2002 (Bates Nos. C 00061- C 00064) 

26. Caliche’s Franchise Offering Circular received by Department of Corporations on

December 31, 2003 (Bates Nos. C 00065- C 00066)

27. Information for Prospective Franchisees Required by Federal Trade Commission

(Bates Nos. C 00067- C 00115)

28. Caliche’s Franchise Agreement [blank] (Bates Nos. C 00116- C 00140)

29. Agreement between Caliche’s and Food Service Concept, Inc. received by

Department of Corporations on December 31, 2003 (Bates Nos. C 00141- C 00145)

30. AIA Document A101-1997 Standard Form of Agreement between Owner and

Contractor dated June 24, 2003, Contractor Food Service Concepts, Inc. (Bates Nos. C 00146- C

00155) 

31. Letter from Kevin E. Killham of Food Service Concepts, Inc. to Brian Padilla

regarding Caliche’s dated October 22, 2003 (Bates Nos. C 00156- C 00157)

32. Caliche’s Inc. Non-Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreement (blank) (Bates

Nos. C 00158- C 00160)

33. Franchise Operating Manual (not complete) Table of Contents (Bates Nos. C

00161- C 00165) 

34. Certificate of Amendment of Caliche’s Inc. from Office of the Public Regulation

Commission dated July 18, 2003 (Bates No. C 00166) 

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 13 of 25
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 14

35. Articles of Amendment of Scoopy’s Inc. dated July 1, 2003 (Bates No. C 00167) 

36. Letter from New Mexico Public Regulation Commission to Sutin, Thayer &

Browne regarding approving Articles of Amendment dated July 22, 2003 (Bates No. C 00168)

37. Caliche’s Inc. Reviewed Financial Statements for year December 31, 2003 (Bates

Nos. C 00169- C 00176) 

38. Letter from William P. Wood to Justin Horwitz regarding Caliche’s Inc dated

January 23, 2004 (Bates Nos. C 00177- C 00179) 

39. Letter from William Wood of Department of Corporations to Justin Horwitz

regarding comments to application dated March 3, 2004 (Bates Nos. C 00180- C 00186) 

40. Letter from Justin A. Horwitz to Jeannie Tanaka of California Department of

Corporations dated March 19, 2004 (Bates Nos. C 00187-C 00188)

41. Caliche’s Franchise Offering Circular (red lined version) received by Department

of Corporations on March 22, 2004 (Bates Nos. C 00189-C 00243)

42. Caliche’s Franchise Offering Circular (Bates Nos. C 00244-C 00295)

43. Email from Jeannie Tanaka to Mr. Horwitz regarding Caliche’s dated March 26,

2004 and facsimile transmission sheet (Bates Nos. C 00296-C 00297))

44. Letter from Justin Horwitz to Jeannie Tanaka re audited financial statements dated

April 1, 2004 (Bates Nos. C 00298-C 00299) 

45. Consent of Independent Accountants dated March 31, 2004 (Bates No. C 00300) 

46. Letter from Justin Horwitz to Jeannie Tanaka dated May 5, 2004 attaching (1)

2004 financial statements and (2) Caliche’s Franchise Offering Circular (Bates Nos. C 00301-C

00362) 

47. Email from Jeannie Tanaka to jah@sutinfirm.com regarding Caliche’s dated April

13, 2004 and facsimile transmission sheet (Bates Nos. C 00363-C 00364)

48. Email from Jeannie Tanaka to jah@sutinfirm.com regarding Caliche’s dated May

13, 2004 and facsimile transmission sheet (Bates Nos. C 00365-C 00367)

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 14 of 25
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 15

49. Email from Jeannie Tanaka to jah@sutinfirm.com regarding Caliche’s dated April

14, 2004 and facsimile transmission sheet (Bates Nos. C 00368-C 00369)

50. Facsimile from Justin Horwitz to Jeannie Tanaka dated May 17, 2004 attaching

Caliche’s Reviewed Financial Statements for 2004 (Bates Nos. C 00371-C 00380)

51. Consent of Independent Accountants dated May 18, 2004 (Bates No. C 00381)

52. Caliche’s Reviewed Financial Statements for 2003 (Bates Nos. C 00382-C 00390)

53. Order Declaring Effectiveness of Registration for Caliche’s Inc. dated May 24,

2004 (Bates No. C 00391)

54. Letter from Jeannie Tanaka to Justin Horwitz enclosing Order (Bates No. C

00392)

55. Facsimile from Justin Horwitz to Jeannie Tanaka dated May 19, 2004 attaching

Redlined Franchise Offering Circular (Bates Nos. C 00393-C 00395)

56. All deposition transcripts in this matter.

57. All unnamed and named exhibits attached to depositions taken in this matter.

58. All documents, items and things produced by the parties in response to written

discovery in this matter.

59. Various photographs and enlargements.

60. All records subpoenaed from any source in this matter.

IX. Discovery Documents To Be Used At Trial (Answers To Interrogatories And 

Responses To Requests For Admissions

A. Discovery Documents that PLAINTIFF and CROSS-DEFENDANTS Will

Use at Trial

1. Initial disclosures of all parties; and

2. Norma Fausone deposition and exhibits thereto.

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 15 of 25
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 16

B. Responses to Written Discovery that CALICHE’S May Use at Trial

Filing Party Document Dated

1 Caliche’s Initial Disclosures of Defendants Pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)

1/31/07

2 Plaintiff & Counter

Defendant E & N

Enterprises &

Norma Fausone

Plaintiff’s and Counter Defendants’ Initial Disclosures 1/31/07

3 Caliche’s Inc., B.

David & Dana

Wortham

Request for Admissions to E & N Enterprises, LLC.

[Set One]

7/30/07

4 Caliche’s Inc., B.

David & Dana

Wortham

Request for Production of Documents to E & N

Enterprises, LLC. [Set One]

7/30/07

5 Caliche’s Inc., B.

David & Dana

Wortham

Form Interrogatories-General to E. & N Enterprises,

LLC. [Set One]

7/30/07

6 Caliche’s Inc., B.

David & Dana

Wortham

Special Interrogatories to E. & N Enterprises, LLC. [Set

One]

7/30/07

7 Caliche’s Inc., B.

David & Dana

Wortham

Form Interrogatories –General to Norma A. Fausone,

[Set One]

7/30/07

8 Caliche’s Inc., B.

David & Dana

Wortham

Special Interrogatories to Norma Fausone [Set One] 7/30/07

9 Caliche’s Inc., B.

David & Dana

Wortham

Request for Production of Documents to Norma

Fausone, [Set One]

7/30/07

10 Caliche’s Inc., B.

David & Dana

Wortham

Request for Admissions to Norma Fausone, [Set One] 7/30/07

11 Caliche’s Inc., B.

David & Dana

Wortham

Notice of Deposition of the Person Most

Knowledgeable of E&N Enterprises, Inc. with

Production of Documents

7/30/07

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 16 of 25
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

Filing Party Document Dated

17

12 Caliche’s Inc., B.

David & Dana

Wortham

Notice of Deposition of Norma Fausone with

Production of Documents

7/30/07

13 E & N Enterprises,

LLC. 

Responses to Defendants and Counter-Claimants’

Request for Production of Documents, [Set One]

9/13/07

X. Further Discovery or Motions

The Parties are not presently aware of any pending discovery disputes. 

XI. Stipulations

The Parties agree that a stipulation to the authenticity of documentary evidence will

further the efficient resolution of this case. The Parties further propose that the Parties should

address and deal with evidentiary objections before trial begins.

XII. Amendments/Dismissals

The Parties have no amendments or dismissals at this time. 

XIII. Settlement Negotiations

The Parties have not had any meaningful settlement discussions to date, however, believe

that a mandatory settlement conference would benefit all involved. 

XIV. Agreed Statement

The parties are directed to file a joint statement of the case by May 8, 2008.

XV. Separate Trial Of Issues

The Parties do not request the separate trial of any issue or issues presented in this action.

XVI. Impartial Experts - Limitation Of Experts

The Parties do not believe it advisable for this Court to appoint an impartial expert, and,

therefore, make no recommendation for the appointment of such an expert.

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 17 of 25
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 18

XVII. Attorneys’ Fees

The Parties will seek contractual attorneys fees by way of a post-trial motion should either

respectively prevail on any claim arising out of the Franchise Agreement.

XVIII. Further Trial Preparation

A. Final Witness List

The parties are ordered to file and serve their final list of witnesses by May 8, 2008. 

Additionally, at that time Plaintiffs shall disclose the order of witnesses so that Defendants will be

prepared for cross-examination.

Except upon the showing set forth above in section VII, a party may not add witnesses to

the final list of witnesses, or to any other updated witness list, who are not disclosed in this Order

in Section VII.

B. Trial Briefs

The parties are directed to file and serve a Trial Brief by 4:00 p.m. on April 24, 2008. 

Local Rule 16-285. The parties need not include in the Trial Brief any issue that is adequately

addressed in a motion in limine, or in an opposition brief to a motion in limine. Any response to a

Trial Brief shall be filed and served by 4:00 p.m. on May 1, 2008. 

C. Duty of Counsel to Pre-Mark Exhibits

The parties are ordered to confer no later than April 11, 2008 for purposes of pre-marking

and examining each other’s exhibits. All joint exhibits must be pre-marked with numbers

preceded by the designation JT/-- (e.g., JT/1, JT/2). All of Plaintiffs’ exhibits shall be pre-marked

with numbers. All of Defendants’ exhibits shall be pre-marked with letters.

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 18 of 25
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 19

1. Counsel shall create four (4) complete, legible sets of exhibits in binders as

follows:

(a) Two sets of binders to be delivered to Courtroom Clerk Harold Nazaroff by

May 8, 2008, one for use by the Courtroom Clerk and the other for the court; and

(b) One set for each counsel’s own use.

If the parties desire, they may have a fifth set of binders to be used for the purposes

of questioning witnesses.

2. Counsel are to confer and make the following determination with respect to each

proposed exhibit to be introduced into evidence, and to prepare separate indexes - one listing joint

exhibits, and one listing each party’s separate exhibits:

(a) Duplicate exhibits, i.e., documents which both sides desire to introduce into

evidence, shall be marked as a joint exhibit, and numbered as directed above. Joint exhibits shall

be listed on a separate index, and shall be admitted into evidence on the motion of any party,

without further foundation.

(b) As to exhibits that are not jointly offered, and to which there is no objection

to introduction, those exhibits will likewise be appropriately marked, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1 or

Defendants’ Exhibit A, and shall be listed in the offering party’s index in a column entitled

“Admitted In Evidence.” Such exhibits will be admitted upon introduction and motion of the

party, without further foundation.

(c) Those exhibits to which the only objection is a lack of foundation shall be

marked appropriately, e.g., Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 2 - For Identification, or Defendants’ Exhibit B -

For Identification, and indexed in a column entitled “Objection Foundation.”

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 19 of 25
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 20

(d) Remaining exhibits as to which there are objections to admissibility not

solely based on a lack of foundation shall likewise be marked appropriately, e.g., Plaintiffs’

Exhibit 3 - For Identification or Defendants’ Exhibit C - For Identification, and indexed in a third

column entitled “Other Objection” on the offering party’s index.

3. Each separate index shall consist of the exhibit number or letter, a brief description

of the exhibit, and the three columns outlined above, as demonstrated in the example below:

INDEX OF EXHIBITS

 ADMITTED OBJECTION OTHER 

 EXHIBIT # DESCRIPTION IN EVIDENCE FOUNDATION OBJECTION

 

Two sets of the completed joint index and the separate indexes shall be delivered

to the Courtroom Clerk with the two sets of binders.

The court has no objection to counsel using copies. However, the copies must be

legible. If any document is offered into evidence that is partially illegible, the court may sua

sponte exclude it from evidence.

D. Discovery Documents

By May 8, 2008, each party shall file a list of all discovery documents the party intends to

use at trial. The list shall indicate whether each discovery document has previously been lodged

with the Clerk. If the discovery document has not been previously lodged, the party shall so lodge

the document with the Courtroom Clerk by May 8, 2008.

E. Motions In Limine Hearing and Briefing Schedule

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 20 of 25
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 21

 The hearing for motions in limine will be held on May 5, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. In addition to

addressing any filed motions in limine, at that time the court will also settle, to the extent possible,

any other matter pertaining to the conduct of the trial.

Counsel are expected to be fully cognizant of the legal issues involved in the case by the

date of the hearing for motions in limine.

By 4:00 p.m. on April 18, 2008, all motions in limine, with supporting points and

authorities, shall be filed and served either personally or by facsimile upon opposing counsel.

By 4:00 p.m. on April 28, 2008, opposition to any motion in limine shall be filed and

served either personally or by facsimile upon opposing counsel. If a party does not oppose a

motion in limine, that party shall file and serve in the same manner a Statement of NonOpposition to that motion in limine.

By 4:00 p.m. on May 1, 2008, any reply to an opposition shall be filed and served either

personally or by facsimile upon opposing counsel. Because the court will need time to prepare for

the hearing on May 5, 2008, the court is not inclined to consider late reply briefs.

F. Morning Conferences During Trial

During the trial, it is the obligation of counsel to meet with the court each morning to

advise the court and opposing counsel as to what documents are proposed to be put into evidence

that have not previously been admitted by stipulation, court order, or otherwise ruled upon. The

court will rule on those documents, to the extent possible, prior to the commencement of trial each

day out of the presence of the jury. If the ruling depends upon the receipt of testimony, the court

will rule as requested upon the receipt of such testimony.

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 21 of 25
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 22

The court shall consider any other legal matter at morning conferences as well. 

The court does not wish to recess the trial to hear legal argument outside of the presence of the

jury, and proper preparation by counsel will eliminate the need for that result.

G. Order Of Witnesses

In order to make the trial operate efficiently and smoothly, each counsel has the continuing

obligation to advise opposing counsel as to what witnesses he or she intends to call at each trial

session.

XIX. Objections to Pretrial Order

Any party may, within ten (10) calendar days after the date of service of this order, file and

serve written objections to any of the provisions of this order. Local Rule 16-283. Such objection

shall specify the requested corrections, additions or deletions.

XX. Rules of Conduct During Trial

A. General Rules

1. All participants in the trial shall conduct themselves in a civil manner. There

shall be no hostile interchanges between any of the participants.

2. All oral presentations shall be made from the podium, unless otherwise

permitted by the court.

3. Sidebar conferences are discouraged. Legal arguments or discussion of issues

outside the presence of the jury should be done during recesses.

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 22 of 25
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 23

4. Counsel shall advise their respective clients and witnesses not to discuss any

aspect of the case in the common areas of the courthouse accessible to the jurors, such as

the lobby, the elevators, the hallways and the cafeteria.

B. Jury Selection

1. The court will conduct voir dire to be supplemented by any written questions

submitted by counsel prior to trial and after the court has concluded its questioning of the

jury panel. Written questions must be submitted by May 8, 2008. In some circumstances,

the court may allow brief direct questioning by counsel.

C. Opening Statements

1. Counsel may use visual aids in presenting the opening statement. However, any

proposed visual aids shall be shown to opposing counsel before opening statement.

D. Case in Chief

1. Counsel shall have his/her witnesses readily available to testify so that there are

no delays in the presentation of evidence to the trier of fact.

2. At the close of each trial day, counsel shall disclose his/her anticipated witnesses

and order of presentation for the next day, so that any scheduling or evidentiary issues may

be raised at that time.

E. Witnesses

1. Before approaching a witness, counsel shall secure leave of court to approach

the witness.

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 23 of 25
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 24

2. Before approaching a witness with a writing, counsel shall first show the writing

to opposing counsel.

F. Exhibits

1. All exhibits shall be marked and identified in accordance with the instructions in

the Pretrial Order.

2. An exhibit shall not be published to the jury until it has been admitted into

evidence and counsel has secured leave of court to publish the exhibit.

3. The court usually will conduct an on the record review of the exhibits that have

been admitted in evidence at the conclusion of each party’s case in chief and after each

party has rested its entire case.

G. Objections

1. No speaking objections or arguments are permitted in the presence of the jury. 

Counsel shall state the specific legal ground(s) for the objection, and the court will rule

based upon the ground(s) stated. The court will permit counsel to argue the matter at the

next recess.

2. The court will not assume that any objection made also implies with it a motion

to strike an answer that has been given. Therefore, counsel who has made an objection,

and who also wishes to have an answer stricken, shall also specifically move to strike the

answer.

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 24 of 25
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 25

H. Closing Argument

1. Counsel may use visual aids in presenting the closing argument. However, any

proposed visual aids shall be shown to opposing counsel before closing argument.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDER MAY BE GROUNDS

FOR THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS, INCLUDING POSSIBLE DISMISSAL OF THIS

ACTION OR ENTRY OF DEFAULT, ON ANY AND ALL COUNSEL AS WELL AS ON ANY

PARTY WHO CAUSES NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ORDER.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01163-AWI-GSA Document 30 Filed 04/04/08 Page 25 of 25