Grid One Solutions, Inc. v. Elster Amco Water, LLC

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03452

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON {{19}} Motion to Dismiss and {{20}} Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 13, 2015. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 GRID ONE SOLUTIONS, INC., 7 Case No. 15-cv-03452-JSW Plaintiff, 8 NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR v. HEARING 9 ELSTER AMCO WATER, LLC, Re: Docket Nos. 19, 20 10 Defendant. 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE 14 OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON December 4, 15 2015, AT 9:00 a.m.: 16 The Court has reviewed the parties' briefs and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties 17 reargue matters addressed in those briefs, and it does not require any argument on the motion to 18 strike. In addition, the parties shall not file written responses to this Notice of Questions for 19 hearing. 20 If the parties intend to rely on legal authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED 21 to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing 22 and to make copies of those authorities available at the hearing. If the parties submit such 23 additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, without 24 argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the 25 opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority. 26 The Court suggests that associates or of counsel attorneys who are working on this case be 27 permitted to address some or all of the Court's questions contained herein. 28 1. How does Plaintiff respond to Defendant's argument, as set forth in the reply brief, 1 thaat the argumeents and facttual assertion ns set forth iin the opposition brief arre not suppoorted by the 2 faccts alleged in n the Complaaint, includin ng the argum ments regardding whetherr certain provvisions of 3 thee MSA could d be enforced d? See, e.g.,, Beltran v. C Capitol Recoords, LLC, N No. 12-cv-10002-YGR, 4 201 12 U.S. Distt. LEXIS 820 025, at *6 (N N.D. Cal. Junne 13, 2012)). 5 2. In its reply brief, b Defendant argues that Plaintifff cannot relyy on Article II.A.3 to 6 sup pport the dam mages elemeent of its claiim, because Plaintiff doees not allegee that Defenddant failed to o 7 pro ovide materials in accord dance with a mutually aggreed shipmeent date or m material releaase 8 sch hedule. In paaragraphs 28 8 and 29, Plaaintiff allegees that Defenndant was unnable to suppply a 9 con ntractually reequired num mber of produ ucts and faileed to meet thhe product ddelivery scheedule. 10 The Co ourt has conssidered the arrgument set forth in foottnote 1 of Defendant's rreply, which 11 is one o inference the Court could c draw from f the alleegations. It iis not, howeever, the onlyy inference. 12 Acccordingly, what w is Defen ndant's best argument thhat the allegaations in parragraphs 28-29 and 38.a Northern District of California United States District Court 13 aree not sufficieent to state a claim for brreach of conttract? 14 3. To the exten nt the Court must interprret the termss of the varioous agreemennts, and 15 mo odifications thereto, t that have been attached a to thhe Complainnt, does eitheer party conttend that 16 theere are materrials outside the record th hat the Courrt must consiider to resolvve this motioon? 17 4. Assuming th hat resolutio on of Defenddant's motionn to dismiss involves a ppure matter 18 of law, l do the parties p wish to engage in n any form oof dispute ressolution befoore the Courrt issues a 19 ruling on the motion? m 20 IT IS SO S ORDER RED. 21 Daated: Novemb ber 13, 2015 5 22 23 24 ___________________________ JE EFFREY S. W WHITE 25 Unnited States D District Judgge 26 27 28 2