Nathel International, Inc. v. Vincent B. Zaninovich & Sons, Inc., No. 1:2018cv00729 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING IN PART 18 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Motion to Stay Action; and ORDER STAYING ACTION signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/26/2018. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 NATHEL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:18-cv-00729-LJO-SAB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN PART FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11 v. 12 VINCENT B. ZANINOVICH & SONS, INC., (ECF Nos. 8, 14, 15, 16, 18) 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 On May 29, 2018, Plaintiff Nathel International, Inc. filed this action for breach of contract and under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”), 7 U.S.C. § 499 et seq., against Defendant Vincent B. Zaninovich & Sons, Inc. seeking declaratory judgment. (ECF No. 1.) On July 17, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss which was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. (ECF No. 9.) On September 18, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (“F&Rs”). The F&Rs recommended Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. Among other things, the F&Rs also recommended that the case be stayed pending resolution of parallel USDA proceedings. The F&Rs were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. The period for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court adopts only 28 1 1 certain aspects of the F&Rs. The Court agrees with the analysis at pages 18-22 of the F&Rs, 2 wherein the magistrate judge recommends: (1) imposition of a discretionary stay in consideration 3 of the pending USDA proceedings, even though, technically, the present action is the first filed; 4 and (2) denial of Plaintiff’s request for discovery during the pendency of the stay. As for the 5 other recommendations contained in the F&Rs pertaining to the motion to dismiss, the Court 6 declines to adopt those recommendations. Among other things, at least one of the alternative 7 jurisdictional analyses appears to be an issue of first impression. In light of the stay, the Court 8 finds no reason to rule on the motion to dismiss. Imposition of a stay is justified in part based on 9 judicial efficiency. That efficiency would not be served by ruling on the motion to dismiss at 10 this time. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 12 1. Defendant’s motion to stay this action to allow resolution of the pending USDA proceedings is GRANTED; 13 14 2. This action is STAYED; 15 3. The parties shall file a joint report on the status of the USDA proceedings within 16 180 days or within 30 days of the conclusion of the USDA proceedings, 17 whichever is sooner; 18 4. proceedings is DENIED; and 19 20 Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to allow discovery during the stay of the 5. The motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its renewal, as appropriate, when the stay is lifted. 21 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ October 26, 2018 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.