Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1151

Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of 1150 Opposition/Response to Motion,, 1149 Opposition/Response to Motion, Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of Defendants' Oppositions to Oracle's Motions for Leave to File Motions for Reconsideration Regarding (1) Saved Development Costs and (2) Up-Sell and Cross-Sell Projections, and Motion for Clarification filed bySAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14)(Related document(s) 1150 , 1149 ) (Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 5/1/2012)

EXHIBIT 6

Page 1
Slip Copy, 2011 WL 5085497 (N.D.Cal.)
(Cite as: 2011 WL 5085497 (N.D.Cal.))

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, N.D. California,
San Jose Division.
Abduraham MOHAMMED, et. al., Plaintiff(s),
v.
CITY OF MORGAN HILL, et. al., Defendant(s).
No. 5:10–cv–05630 EJD.
Docket Item Nos. 169, 170.
Oct. 25, 2011.
Abduraham Mohammed, San Jose, CA, pro se.
Jinow Gudal, San Jose, CA, pro se.
Gregg Anthony Thornton, Esq., Danielle Kono
Lewis, Selman Breitman, LLP, Thomas A. Blake,
State Attorney General's Office, Michael Lloyd
Smith, Patrick L. Hurley, Manning & Kass, Ellrod,
Ramirez, Trester LLP, San Francisco, CA, Mark F.
Bernal, Office of the County Counsel, San Jose,
CA, for Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR CLARIFICATION
EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.
*1 Presently before the court is Plaintiff Jinow
Gudal's (“Gudal”) Motion for Clarification of the
order issued by Judge Jeremy Fogel on August 30,
2011. See Docket Item Nos. 169, 170. Having carefully reviewed this matter, Gudal's motion will be
denied for the reasons explained below.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 13, 2010, pro se Plaintiffs Abduraham Mohammed (“Mohammed”) and his mother, Gudal, commenced this civil rights action
against a series of municipal and individual Defendants. In the simplest of terms, Plaintiffs allege
that Mohammed was wrongfully arrested, charged
with a crime he did not commit, and improperly in-

carcerated for a period of 6 months. See Docket
Item No. 1. Although the charges were ultimately
dropped and Mohammed released from jail,
Plaintiffs allege he was denied proper medical
treatment for a brain tumor while incarcerated. See
id. As a result, Mohammed's health deteriorated
such that he required constant care by Gudal. See
id.
During the early stages of this litigation, the
parties filed a miscellaneous collection of motions
and requests—some dispositive and some procedural. Eventually, this court's predecessor (Judge
Jeremy Fogel) consolidated the motions into one
hearing on April 15, 2011. See Docket Item No.
153. Intending to issue a written ruling, the court
submitted the motions for decision. Id.
Mohammed thereafter died on August 21,
2011. See Docket Item No. 165. Since all of the
previously-submitted motions remained pending at
that time, the court issued the following order on
August 30, 2011:
The Court recently was informed that Plaintiff
Abduraham Mohammed has died. In light of Mr.
Mohammed's death, the Court hereby terminates
all pending motions without prejudice. If she
wishes to pursue any remaining claims in this action, Plaintiff Jinow Gudal must file an amended
complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of
this order.
Gudal did not amend the complaint as directed.
Instead, she filed the instant motion on October 17,
2011, seeking clarification of the August 30th order.
II. DISCUSSION
“A court may clarify its order for any reason.”
Wahl v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., No. C 08–0555 RS, 2010
WL 2867130, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84878, at *9
(N.D.Cal. July 20, 2010). This type of request
“invite[s] interpretation, which trial courts are often

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 2
Slip Copy, 2011 WL 5085497 (N.D.Cal.)
(Cite as: 2011 WL 5085497 (N.D.Cal.))

asked to supply, for the guidance of the parties.”
Bordallo v. Reyes, 763 F.2d 1098, 1102 (9th
Cir.1985). From this, it is apparent that the clarification process presumes some legitimate need supporting relief, such as the existence of ambiguity or
confusion that can corrected with further explanation. But where an order or direction of the court is
clear, it follows that clarification is unnecessary.
Here, Gudal request this court clarify the type
of amendment contemplated by the order, i.e. an
amendment of only the parties or an amendment of
the complaint itself. Within the framework stated
above, however, the court finds the request misplaced for two reasons. First, nothing in the August
30th order requires clarification. The two simple
sentences which constitute the entirety of the order
are neither confusing, incomplete nor ambiguous.
The court provided only one unequivocal directivethe filing of an amended complaint-within a specific period of time. No further instruction is required
for Gudal to determine what she must do to comply.
*2 Second, the specific clarification question
posed by Gudal seeks information that cannot be
provided by the court. As the August 30th order
suggests, Mohammed's death may have a significant impact on this case in a variety of ways. It is
possible that the parties, the causes of action, or potentially both must be amended in order for this
case to proceed further. Gudal may wish to investigate and seek direction from qualified individuals
in that regard. But the court is not a legal advisor
and cannot counsel Gudal on what must be done, if
anything. That is her obligation as a party to litigation, regardless of whether she is represented by
counsel.

order to show cause for failure to prosecute.
III. ORDER
Based on the foregoing:
1. Gudal's Motion for Clarification (Docket Item
Nos. 169, 170) is DENIED.
2. Gudal shall file an amended complaint on or
before November 30, 2011.
3. This court also schedules this action for a further Case Management Conference on January
20, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. The parties shall file a
Joint Case Management Statement on or before
January 13, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
N.D.Cal.,2011.
Mohammed v. City of Morgan Hill
Slip Copy, 2011 WL 5085497 (N.D.Cal.)
END OF DOCUMENT

Although Gudal has not presented a valid basis
for clarification of the August 30th order, the court
nonetheless finds it appropriate to extend the deadline for the filing of an amended complaint. Accordingly, Gudal shall file an amended pleading on
or before November 21, 2011. Gudal is admonished
that failure to comply with this order for the second
time may result in dismissal of this action upon an

© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.