Stoody-Broser v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 117

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR HEARING. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on August 20, 2009. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ELLEN STOODY-BROSER, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants. / NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR HEARING No. C 08-02705 JSW

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON AUGUST 21, 2009 AT 9:00 A.M.: The Court has reviewed the parties' papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of counsel attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court's questions contained herein.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions: 1. Considering the passage of time and this Court's previous ruling, is the motion to stay this action (docket no. 42) moot? If not, what further relief do Defendants seek from that motion? Defendants argue that the gravamen of the complaint is that Defendants engaged in transactions that inured to their benefit at the expense of Plaintiff and the purported class and that regardless of how she legally characterizes her claims, material misrepresentations and omissions serve as the factual predicate for Plaintiff's state law claims. a. Is the failure to provide objective recommendations for investment instead of investing trust assets in affiliated proprietary mutual funds inherently misleading? b. Where, specifically, in the complaint are the misrepresentations or omitted material facts relating to those transactions? c. In what part of the complaint does Plaintiff challenge Defendants' failure to disclose material facts? If the Court were to grant Defendants' motion to dismiss, on what basis could it give Plaintiff leave to amend? Do the parties have anything further they wish to address? IT IS SO ORDERED.

2.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

3. 4.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: August 20, 2009

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2