Capital Trust, Inc. v. Lembi et al

Filing 30

NOTICE of Tentative Ruling and Questions for Hearing. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on August 17, 2009. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CAPITAL TRUST, INC., Plaintiff, v. WALTER R. LEMBI, et al., Defendants. / No. 09-02492 JSW NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING

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 TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON AUGUST 21, 2009 AT 9:00 A.M.: The Court has reviewed the parties' memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on legal 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 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 also 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. The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff's application for a writ of attachment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Each party shall have ten (10) minutes to address the following question(s): 1. In its Amended Proposed Order, Plaintiff refers to an undertaking, but does not directly address that issue, including the appropriate amount of an undertaking, in its papers. See Cal. Code Civ. P. 484.090(b). What is Plaintiff's position on the appropriate amount of an undertaking? 2. Plaintiff has included the promissory notes that Defendants contend were not attached to the motion with the Supplemental Declaration of Lily North, submitted with Plaintiff's reply. Plaintiff also submits the Intercreditor Agreement with that Declaration. a. In light of the submission of these documents, what is Defendants' best argument that Plaintiff's motion should not be granted? 3. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2009

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2