# Opposition Brief — Crown Oil Corp. v. Lapidus Popcorn, Inc. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_0422%3A4 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1986 - **Citation:** 479 U.S. 879 ## Text Supreme Court, U.S. rat FILED 0 ocT 3 1986 No. 86-287 JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR. CLERK IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1986 CROWN OIL CORPORATION; GRANEX CORPORATION, U.S.A. and PAN PACIFIC COMMODITIES, Appellants, Ve LAPIDUS POPCORN, INC., Appellee. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF OIL COMPANY AMICI FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA Counsel of Record SCARPULLA & SCARPULLA A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 423 Washington Street 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 788-7210 [Additional Counsel Appear on Signature Page] Counsel for Appellee Lapidus Popcorn, Inc. No. 86-287 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1986 CROWN OIL CORPORATION ; GRANEX CORPORATION, U.S.A. ana PAN PACIFIC COMMODITIES, Appellants, V. LAPIDUS POPCORN, INC., Appellee. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF OIL COMPANY AMICI FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA Counsel of Record SCARPULLA & SCARPULLA A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 423 Washington Street 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 788-721 [Additional Counsel Appear on Signature Page] Counsel for Appellee Lapidus Popcorn, Inc. Appellant, Lapidus Popcorn, Inc., pur- Suant to Rule 36.3, objects to the motion of the six oil company amici for leave to file an amicus brief because: (1) the filing of an amicus brief without obtaining the con- sent is "not favored"; (2) the offered amicus brief does not discuss the jurisdic- tional question, which is the only issue now before this Court; (3) amici did not address a written request to the parties requesting consent to file their brief; and (4) amici have not stated that the appellants' juris- dictional brief was inadequate. Thus, amici's brief deals only with the merits of the appeal itself and has nothing to do with the jurisdictional issue. As this Court knows, this appeal has been taken from the overruling of a demurrer in the California Superior Court, which ruling was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. See, Crown Oil Corporation v. Superior Court (1986) 177 Cal. Aop. 3d 604, 223 Cal. Rptr. 164. As this Court also knows, the undisputed facts of this case show that there was no prior federal antitrust judgment that could possibly conflict with this state-court action. The federal case involved a settle- ment of a disputed federal action with a specific disclaimer of any antitrust lia- bility. Significantly, none of the federal plaintiffs was paid any cash, but merely received so-called “script" for future purchases of coconut oil. The cash payment of some $2 million was reserved for the federal plaintiffs' counsel. Additionally, there was no evidence that the federal direct-purchasing class member who resold to Lapidus even participated in the federal settlement fund. Therefore, as this action is in its initial pleading stages and there was no evidence of even a remote possiblity of multiple liability, the appeal should be dismissed. Thus, aS amici have failed to address this jurisdictional issue, Appellant respectfully suggests that this motion to file an amicus brief be denied. Dated: September 30, 1986 FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA STEPHEN V. SCARPULLA SCARPULLA & SCARPULLA A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 423 Washington Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 788-7210 MARIO N. ALIOTO LAW OFFICE OF MARIO N. ALIOTO 2280 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 563-7200 JOSEPH M. PATANE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. PATANE 2280 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 563-7200 Counsel for Appellee Lapidus Popcorn, Inc. BY Frastu (0 Lull ae . Scarpulfla 3. PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction service of the attached document wasS made, I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. My business address is 423 Washington Street, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, California 94111. On the 6th day of October, 1986, I served the attached document to the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail at San Francisco, California, addressed as follows: (SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST) a oro Angié Tytherleigh SERVICE LIST Juan G. Collas, Jr., Esq. Bruce H. Jackson, Esq. Jonathan S. Kitchen, Esq. Baker & McKenzie 580 California Street 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 James F. Kirkham, Esq. Debra B. Keil, Attorney at Law Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro 225 Bush Street P.O. Box 7880 San Francisco, CA 94120 Otis Pratt Pearsall Philip H. Curtis Bruce R. Kelly Hughes Hubbard & Reed One Wall Street New York, New York 1000C5 Andrew J. Kilcarr Maureen O'Bryon Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 1850 K Street, N.W. Suite 1200 Washington, D.C. 20006 William Simon William R. O'Brien Robert M. Bruskin Howrey & Simon 1730 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 SERVICE LIST (Continued ) Leslie C. Randall Texaco Inc. 10 Universal City Plaza Suite 1300 Universal City, CA 91608 Darryl Snider Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison 444 South Flower Street Suite 4300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Philip K. Verleger David A. Destino McCutchen, Black, Verleger & Shea 600 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_0422%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.