Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Legacy Transportation Services, Inc.

Filing 26

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS re 11 MOTION to Remand Case to Contra Costa County Superior Court. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on April 6, 2010. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/6/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA and TOMOTHERAPY INCORPORATED, Plaintiffs, v. LEGACY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants. / TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON APRIL 9, 2010 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. NOTICE OF QUESTIONS No. C 10-00505 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 3. 2. 1. The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions: Defendant Legacy Transportation Services and third-party defendant United Van Lines, LLC contend that the offloading, rigging and installation services at issue in this matter fall within the definition of "transportation" subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, and are therefore subject to the preemptive ambit of the Carmack Amendment. What specific legal authority indicates that these services, treated separately in the subject contract, are indeed encompassed within the definition of transportation? Is Defendant Legacy Transportation Services a carrier or a broker? What evidence is in the record or can be put in the record to clarify Defendant's legal status? If there remains a factual dispute over whether Defendant's conduct may legally fall under the ambit of the Carmack Amendment, must the Court remand? How can the Court disregard the contractual agreement that any action relating to the agreement be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California and that any suit be brought in the county of Contra Costa? Do the parties have anything further they wish to address? United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 4. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 6, 2010 JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?