Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03838/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03838-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re:

CROWN VANTAGE, INC.,

Debtor

 

CROWN PAPER COMPANY, et al.,

Plaintiffs

v.

FORT JAMES CORPORATION, f/k/a

JAMES RIVER CORPORATION OF

VIRGINIA, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-02-3838 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE

SINGLE CONSOLIDATED

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS’ TWO MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Before the Court is plaintiffs’ administrative motion, filed November 16, 2006, by

which plaintiffs seek leave to file a single 50-page memorandum of points and authorities in

opposition to defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment.

One of defendants’ motions is directed toward Count I in plaintiffs’ Second Amended

Complaint, by which cause of action plaintiffs seek to set aside certain cash transfers made

by the debtors in 1995. The other motion addresses Count II, by which cause of action

Case 3:02-cv-03838-MMC Document 175 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 2
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

plaintiffs seek to set aside a 1998 settlement agreement, wherein the debtors released

claims arising from the 1995 cash transfers; the motion additionally addresses certain of

defendants’ counterclaims relating to the validity and interpretation of that agreement. The

two motions pertain to separate transactions, not only of differing character but also

occurring several years apart. Under such circumstances, the Court finds it appropriate

that the issues relevant to the respective transactions be addressed by way of separate

motions, and that the filing of separate oppositions would best assist the Court in

determining whether the remaining claims, or any of them, are viable.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ administrative motion is hereby DENIED, and plaintiffs shall

file a separate opposition to each of the above-referenced motions filed by defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-03838-MMC Document 175 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 2