1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 912 F.Supp.
  5. 912 F.Supp. 1325 (1995)
 

U.S. EX REL. SEQUOIA ORANGE CO. v. SUNLAND PACKING HOUSE COMPANY

Nos. CV-F-88-566-OWW, CV-F-89-002, CV-F-89-004, CV-F-89-006 to CV-F-89-008, CV-F-89-012 to CV-F-89-014, CV-F-89-050 to CV-F-89-062, CV-F-91-194-OWW, CV-F-91-195 to CV-F-91-197 and CV-F-93-5016-OWW.

912 F.Supp. 1325 (1995)

UNITED STATES ex rel. SEQUOIA ORANGE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SUNLAND PACKING HOUSE COMPANY, Defendants. UNITED STATES ex rel. SEQUOIA ORANGE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SAN JOAQUIN CITRUS, and Sunkist Growers, Inc., Defendants. UNITED STATES ex rel. SEQUOIA ORANGE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BAIRD-NEECE PACKING CORP., and Sunkist Growers, Inc., Defendants. UNITED STATES ex rel. SEQUOIA ORANGE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. OXNARD LEMON COMPANY, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES ex rel. SEQUOIA ORANGE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MISSION CITRUS COMPANY, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES ex rel. SEQUOIA ORANGE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. VENTURA PACIFIC COMPANY, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES ex rel. SEQUOIA ORANGE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SATICOY LEMON ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES ex rel. Lisle BABCOCK, Plaintiff, v. DOLE CITRUS, INC., Defendant.

United States District Court, E.D. California.

September 27, 1995.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Daniel Bensing, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA.

James Moody, Washington, DC.

Brian Leighton, Clovis, CA.

Gerald Vinnard, Thomas, Snell, Jamison, Russell & Asperger, Fresno, CA.

Michael Bierman, Jeffrey Wexler, Tuttle and Taylor, Los Angeles, CA.

Robert L. Compton, Nordman, Cormany, Hair & Compton, Oxnard, CA.

Stephen Altman, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Kendall Manock, Baker, Manock and Jensen, Fresno, CA.

Steven Williams, Williams, Jordan & Broderson, Visalia, CA.

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER RE: UNITED STATES' MOTION TO DISMISS

WANGER, District Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

These 27 partially consolidated False Claims Act (FCA) cases are before the court on the United States's motion to dismiss under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A).1 The motion presents a question of first impression.

A. Statutory Background.

The claims arise from alleged violation of prorate restrictions...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases