Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00349/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00349-46/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARGILL INC. AND CAN CASE NO. CV-F-07-0349- LJO-SMS

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Plaintiffs, AMENDMENT TO ORDER ON CARGILL’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON

CERTAIN COUNTERCLAIMS (Doc. 275) 

 

vs.

PROGRESSIVE DAIRY

SOLUTIONS, INC. et al.,

Defendants.

 /

and related counterclaims.

 /

The Conclusion and Order to this Court’s Order on Cargill’s Motion for Summary Judgment on

Certain Counterclaims (Doc. 275, May 29, 2008) is AMENDED to read as follows:

V. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, this Court:

1. GRANTS in full Cargill’s motion for summary judgment on the following Progressive

counterclaims: 

(a) Latham Act Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) claim (count 1);

(b) False Advertising, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500 (count 9);

(c) fraud (count 13); 

(d) unjust enrichment (count 18). Although this cause of action fails as a matter of law,

Progressive is entitled to restitution to the extent it proves restitutionary damages on any

prevailing claims.; and 

Case 1:07-cv-00349-LJO-SMS Document 277 Filed 05/30/08 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

(e) civil conspiracy (count 19). Although this cause of action fails as a matter of law, 

Progressive is entitled to recover damages from bo th joint-tortfeasors, if any, to the

extent that Progressive proves the elements of a civil conspiracy and damages.; and 

2. GRANTS in part and DENIES in part, consistent with this opinion, Cargill’s motion for

summary judgment on the following Progressive counterclaims: 

(a) common law unfair competition (count 2). Summary judgment is denied to the extent

that Progressive raises a triable issue of fact related to Cargill’s misappropriation of

Progressive’s premix.;

(b) Statutory Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof Code 17200 (count 3). Summary

judgment is denied to the extent that Progressive raised issues of fact concerning

Cargill’s alleged unlawful and unfair business practices not protected by the litigation

privilege.; 

(c) Unfair Trade Practices, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17000, et seq. (count 8). Summary

judgment is denied to the extent that Progressive has admissible evidence to support a

claim not related to its below-cost pricing allegations.; 

(d) defamation/commercial disparagement (count 10). Summary judgment is denied to

the extent that Progressive raises triable issues of fact related to the three statements

identified in this opinion as having unresolved questions of fact (infra, pp. 17-18).; 

(e) intentional interference with contractual relations (count 11). Summary judgment is

denied to the extent that Progressive raises a triable issue of fact related to Tony Vitoria,

Richie Heida, Hank Van Excel, RV Dairy, and Standard Cattle Co.; and 

(f) intentional interference with prospective business relations (count 12). Summary

judgment is denied to the extent that Progressive raises triable issues of fact raised in its

Interrogatory Response, identifying Richie Heida, Bryan Kamper, and Marty Poldervaart

as people upon which this cause of action is based. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 30, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00349-LJO-SMS Document 277 Filed 05/30/08 Page 2 of 2