Grolsche Bierbrouwerij Nederland, B.V. v. Dovebid, Inc. et al
Filing
31
ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 23 Motion to Dismiss (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2011)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
GROLSCHE BIERBROUWERIJ NEDERLAND,
B.V., a foreign corporation,
8
Plaintiff,
9
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
v.
10
12
DOVEBID, INC., a California
corporation; and GOINDUSTRY USA,
INC., a Maryland corporation,
13
Defendants.
11
14
15
I.
) Case No. 11-763 SC
)
) ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS'
) MOTION TO DISMISS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Grolsche Bierbrouwerij Nederland, B.V. ("Plaintiff")
16
17
commenced this action against Defendants DoveBid, Inc. ("DoveBid")
18
and GoIndustry USA, Inc. ("GoIndustry") (collectively,
19
"Defendants"), alleging breach of a written guaranty.
20
Amended Complaint, ECF No. 19 ("FAC").
21
fully briefed motion to dismiss the action under Federal Rule of
22
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the doctrine of forum non conveniens,
23
or, in the alternative, to stay this action pending the resolution
24
of another action Plaintiff commenced in the Netherlands.
25
23 ("Mot."), 27 ("Opp'n"), 28 ("Reply").
26
reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
27
///
28
///
First
Now before the Court is a
ECF Nos.
For the following
1
II.
BACKGROUND
As it must on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court assumes the
2
3
truth of the well-pleaded facts in Plaintiff's FAC; however, it
4
does not accept as true allegations that contradict exhibits
5
attached to the FAC or matters properly subject to judicial notice.
6
Manzarek v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 519 F.3d 1025, 1031
7
(9th Cir. 2008).
8
Netherlands, owned two breweries in the Dutch cities of Groenlo and
9
Enschede.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Plaintiff, a foreign corporation based in the
FAC ¶¶ 1, 7.
In 2003, it decided to close these two
facilities and liquidate their assets.
Id. ¶ 8.
On or about July 10, 2003, Plaintiff entered into a written
11
12
agreement ("the Agreement")1 with Hamerbod B.V. f/k/a DoveBid
13
Netherlands B.V. ("Hamerbod"), a United Kingdom corporation.
14
¶ 9.
15
from these two facilities on Plaintiff's behalf.
16
Agreement § 4.
17
met, it would pay Plaintiff a minimum of four million euros.
18
This guaranteed minimum payment was due on or before September 30,
19
2005.
20
be liable if it sold any assets that Plaintiff had not included in
21
an exhibit attached to the Agreement.
Id.
Under this Agreement, Hamerbod agreed to sell specific assets
Id. ¶ 9;
Hamerbod agreed that if certain conditions were
Agreement § 4.
Id.
The Agreement provided that Hamerbod would
Id. § 7.
Also on or about July 10, 2003, Plaintiff entered into a
22
23
separate agreement ("the Guaranty") with DoveBid, a California
24
corporation that Plaintiff alleges is Hamerbod's parent company.
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiff attached the Agreement to its FAC. FAC Ex. A
("Agreement"). Defendants do not dispute its authenticity, and the
Court takes judicial notice of it.
2
1
Id. ¶¶ 4, 10-11.2
2
unconditionally" guaranteed performance and payment of Hamerbod's
3
obligations under the Agreement.
Under the Guaranty, DoveBid "irrevocably and
Id.
Plaintiff alleges that while the Agreement required payment of
4
5
the guaranteed minimum by September 30, 2005, Plaintiff and
6
Hamerbod agreed to extend this deadline several times "in an
7
attempt to maximize the gross proceeds received" from the sale of
8
the two facilities' assets.
9
the sale of the assets until the summer of 2006.
Id. ¶ 12.
Hamerbod did not complete
Id.
Plaintiff
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
and Hamerbod then met to discuss the balance owed by Hamerbod under
11
the Agreement.
12
discussions, the two "reached a mutual understanding that
13
Hamerbod's obligation to pay the amount still owing under the
14
Agreement would not arise until after the parties' discussions
15
regarding the amount still owed under the Agreement were concluded
16
and Grolsche issued a final invoice to Hamerbod demanding payment
17
of the amount Grolsche believed was owed."
Id. ¶ 13.
Plaintiff alleges that during these
Id.
18
On October 31, 2006, Hamerbod sent Plaintiff a letter of its
19
"final settlement . . . detailing all proceeds, costs and charges
20
incurred and remittances made with respect to the project to
21
liquidate the Groenlo and Enschede facilities pursuant to the . . .
22
Agreement."
23
("Oct. 31, 2006 Letter").3
24
2
25
26
27
28
Mot. at 5; Am. Dutch Compl. ¶¶ 18-19; id. Ex. 14
Hamerbod denied that it was liable for
Plaintiff attached the Guaranty to its FAC. FAC Ex. B
("Guaranty"). Defendants do not dispute its authenticity, and the
Court takes judicial notice of it.
3
Defendants seek judicial notice of documents filed by Plaintiff
in a breach of contract action Plaintiff brought against Hamerbod
in the Netherlands, discussed infra. ECF No. ("RJN").
Specifically, Defendants seek judicial notice of the initial
summons and complaint, the amended summons and complaint, and the
documents attached to both complaints. Id. Exs. 1, 2. Defendants
3
1
the four million euro guarantee, claiming that the conditions
2
provided in the Agreement had not occurred.
3
concluded by stating it "has fully performed all of its obligations
4
pursuant to the Agreement, and the enclosed remittance constitutes
5
our final settlement of this engagement."
Id.
Hamerbod
Id.
On November 10, 2006, Plaintiff issued an invoice to Hamerbod,
6
7
dated November 9, 2006, in the amount it believed Hamerbod still
8
owed under the Agreement.
9
10, 2006 Letter").
Id. ¶ 14; Am. Dutch Compl. Ex. 9 ("Nov.
In it, Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
October 31, 2006 Letter, and wrote: "It is our firm conclusion that
11
your firm has to pay us the 'guaranteed minimum' under the
12
guarantee."
13
Id.
14
¶ 15.
15
Id.
The invoice demanded payment within twenty days.
Hamerbod did not make a payment within this time frame.
Id.
On December 4, 2006, Plaintiff sent Hamerbod another letter in
16
regard to "overdue accounts."
Am. Dutch Compl. Ex. 10 ("Dec. 4,
17
2006 Letter").
18
urged your company to perform your payment obligations toward us
Plaintiff stated: "On repeated occasions we have
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
also seek judicial notice of an English-language translation of the
amended Dutch summons and complaint by Dutch Translator Wanda J.
Boeke ("Boeke"). Id. ¶ 2. Boeke declares that, among other
qualifications, she is certified by the American Translators
Association and the Translators and Interpreters Guild with respect
to Dutch-to-English translations. ECF No. 14. She declares that
she has attached a true, correct, and accurate copy of her Dutchto-English translation of the summons. Id. ¶ 8; id. Ex. B ("Am.
Dutch Compl."). A court may take judicial notice of a document if
the plaintiff's claim depends on the contents of the document and
the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document.
Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1076 (9th Cir. 2005). Because
Plaintiff's claim depends on the existence of the documents and
because there is no dispute as to their authenticity, the Court
GRANTS Defendants' request. However, because the Court may not
take judicial notice of the truth of the facts recited within a
judicially noticed document, Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d
668, 688–90 (9th Cir. 2001), it limits this notice accordingly.
4
1
under our agreement dated 10 July 2003.
However all our attempts
2
to induce your company to pay the overdue accounts, have been
3
ignored."
4
failed to make this payment within seven days.
Plaintiff threatened legal action if Hamerbod
Id.
Id.
5
Hamerbod did not remit payment within seven days.
6
9, 2007, Hamerbod wrote Plaintiff, again refusing to make the
7
demanded payment and restating the reasons why it believed it was
8
not responsible for the guarantee.
9
On March
FAC ¶ 15.
Plaintiff alleges that under the Agreement, Hamerbod paid
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
€3,688,476.09, leaving €311,523.91 of the guaranteed minimum
11
unpaid.
12
responsible for paying €760,000 in Value Added Tax ("VAT") under
13
the Agreement.
14
sold a piece of equipment that Plaintiff did not own, despite
15
having notice that Plaintiff did not own the equipment, and thus is
16
liable under the Agreement for the €50,000 cost of replacement.
17
Id. ¶ 18.
18
Id. ¶ 16.
Plaintiff alleges that Hamerbod was also
Id. ¶ 17.
Plaintiff also alleges that Hamerbod
On October 19, 2010, Plaintiff filed suit against Hamerbod in
19
the Netherlands, alleging breach of the Agreement.
20
January 19, 2011, Plaintiff amended its Dutch Complaint.
21
Am. Dutch Compl.
22
defendants in the Dutch complaint.
23
Id. ¶ 19.
On
Id.; see
Neither DoveBid nor GoIndustry are named as
On November 24, 2010, Plaintiff brought the present action for
24
breach of a written guaranty against DoveBid and GoIndustry in
25
California Superior Court for the County of San Mateo.
26
("Notice of Removal") Ex. A ("Initial Compl.").
27
that on or about December 31, 2010, DoveBid was merged into
28
GoIndustry, a Maryland corporation, and claims that through this
5
ECF No. 1
Plaintiff alleges
1
merger, GoIndustry assumed DoveBid's legal obligations.
2
4.
3
court, citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441(b) as the basis for
4
removal.
5
dismiss the action on March 13, 2011, alleging that Plaintiff's
6
cause of action against Defendants accrued no later than November
7
9, 2006, thus time-barring Plaintiff's action.
8
April 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed its FAC.
9
subsequently withdrew their first motion and filed the instant
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
FAC ¶¶ 10,
On February 18, 2011, Defendants removed this action to federal
Motion.
See Notice of Removal ¶ 3.
Defendants filed a motion to
ECF No. 13.
See FAC.
On
Defendants
See Mot.
11
Defendants argue that under California's four-year statute of
12
limitations for breach of a written contract, Plaintiff's claim is
13
time-barred.
14
believed" that Hamerbod had breached its obligations under the
15
Agreement no later than November 9, 2006, "and likely earlier,"
16
rendering the November 24, 2010 filing of this action untimely.
17
Id. at 1-2.
18
should be dismissed or stayed based on the doctrine of forum non
19
conveniens and failure to join an indispensible party.
Mot. at 1.
Defendants allege that Plaintiff "clearly
Defendants argue in the alternative that the action
Id. at 2.
20
21
22
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23
12(b)(6) "tests the legal sufficiency of a claim."
Navarro v.
24
Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001).
25
on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of
26
sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.
27
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir.
28
1990).
Dismissal can be based
"When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court
6
1
should assume their veracity and then determine whether they
2
plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief."
3
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009).
4
court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a
5
complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions.
6
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
7
conclusory statements, do not suffice."
8
(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
Ashcroft v.
However, "the tenet that a
Threadbare
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
IV.
DISCUSSION
When a motion to dismiss is based on the running of the
12
statute of limitations, it can be granted only if the assertions of
13
the complaint, read with the required liberality, would not permit
14
the plaintiff to prove that the statute was tolled.
15
Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir. 1980).
16
provides a four-year statute of limitations for actions "upon any
17
contract, obligation or liability founded upon an instrument in
18
writing."
19
breach of contract accrues at the time of breach; that is, "the
20
limitations period begins when the plaintiff suspects, or should
21
suspect, that she has been wronged."
22
Cal. 3d 1103, 1112 (1988).
23
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337(1).
Jablon v. Dean
California
A cause of action for
Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44
Unless the guaranty provides otherwise, the liability of a
24
surety or guarantor accrues at the same time as that of the
25
principal, or upon default of the principal.
26
Cal. 2d 793, 799 (1957); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 359.5 ("If the
27
obligations under a surety bond are conditioned upon performance of
28
the principal, the expiration of the statute of limitations with
7
Bloom v. Bender, 48
1
respect to the obligations of the principal, other than the
2
obligations of the principal under the bond, shall also bar an
3
action against the principal or surety under the bond, unless the
4
terms of the bond provide otherwise.").
5
creditor agree to modify a contract and the guarantor consents to
6
that modification, the guarantor is bound by that change.
7
Bd. of Equalization v. Carleton, 223 Cal. App. 3d 1607, 1610 (Ct.
8
App. 1990).
9
the contract for the performance of the suretyship obligation."
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
If the principal and the
State
"Consent to such changes may be given in advance in
Id.
Defendants argue that given judicially noticeable documents
11
12
and facts admitted by Plaintiff, Plaintiff's claim is time-barred
13
as a matter of law.4
14
uncontested: under the terms of the Agreement, the guaranteed
15
minimum payment was due on or before September 30, 2005; Hamerbod
16
sent Plaintiff a letter denying liability for the guaranteed
17
minimum payment and offering a "final settlement" on October 31,
18
2006; and Plaintiff sent Hamerbod a "final invoice" demanding
19
payment of the guaranteed minimum payment on November 9, 2006.
20
They argue that these uncontested facts establish that Plaintiff's
They assert the following facts are
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
The parties dispute whether the Court may treat statements made
by Plaintiff in its Dutch complaints as judicial admissions. The
Court may treat factual assertions in pleadings as judicial
admissions conclusively binding on the party who made them;
however, where a party explains the statement as being made in
error in a subsequent pleading or by amendment, the Court must
accord the explanation some weight. Sicor Ltd. v. Cetus Corp., 51
F.3d 848, 859-60 (9th Cir. 1995). The Ninth Circuit has not
addressed whether a district court may treat statements made in a
foreign proceeding as judicial admissions. Plaintiff does not
argue that statements within the Dutch complaints were in error;
rather, it argues that they are consistent with the allegations in
the FAC. Because of this, and because of relatedness of the two
actions, the Court finds it appropriate to treat statements made by
Plaintiff in its Amended Dutch Complaint as judicial admissions.
8
1
cause of action for breach of the Agreement accrued no later than
2
November 9, 2006, and thus Plaintiff's November 24, 2010 filing of
3
this action occurred after Plaintiff's claim had been extinguished
4
by the statute of limitations.
5
claim accrued even earlier, referencing Hamerbod's obligation under
6
the Agreement to pay the guarantee by September 30, 2005 and
7
Hamerbod's October 31, 2006 letter denying its obligation to pay
8
the guarantee and offering a "final settlement."
9
Dutch Compl. ¶¶ 18-19.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Defendants suggest that Plaintiff's
Mot. at 5; Am.
Plaintiff argues that its claim against Hamerbod did not
11
accrue until November 29, 2010.
12
because its November 9, 2006 letter demanded payment within twenty
13
days, its cause of action against Hamerbod did not accrue until
14
Hamerbod failed to pay within that twenty-day time period.
15
Defendants respond that the plain language of the Agreement
16
provides that Hamerbod's payment obligations accrued no later than
17
twenty days after the auction sales were completed, and that the
18
Agreement makes no mention of a "notice" or "invoice" requirement.
19
Reply at 1.
20
completed in summer of 2006, and so Defendants argue that as such,
21
any breach occurred ten days after the final sale.
22
challenge Plaintiff's argument that the statute of limitations was
23
tolled because Plaintiff asked for the invoice to be paid in twenty
24
days, stating: "if Grolsche's position were correct, a plaintiff
25
could avoid the SOL indefinitely simply by sending invoices with
26
future due dates, but a plaintiff does not control the statute of
27
limitations, and that is certainly not the law."
28
Opp'n at 7.
Plaintiff argues that
Id.
The parties agree that the auction sales were
The Court agrees with Defendants.
9
Id.
Defendants
Id. at 2.
A party to a contract
1
cannot avoid the statute of limitations by unilaterally setting a
2
date by which it demands payment; as Defendants note, this would
3
frustrate the purpose of the statute of limitations.
4
failed to pay the guarantee by September 30, 2005, it breached the
5
Agreement.
6
or a separate enforceable agreement, the statute of limitations on
7
Plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim against Hamerbod ran on
8
October 1, 2010.
9
Procedure, this would extinguish a cause of action against a surety
When Hamerbod
As such, absent tolling, modification to the Agreement,
Under section 359.5 of California's Code of Civil
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
unless the terms of the Guaranty provided otherwise, and, as the
11
Court discusses infra, the Guaranty does not provide otherwise.
12
Next, Plaintiff alleges that in the summer of 2006, during
13
Hamerbod's performance under the Agreement, Hamerbod and Plaintiff
14
agreed that Hamerbod's obligation to pay the balance would not
15
accrue until their discussions were concluded and Plaintiff issued
16
a final invoice to Hamerbod for payment.
17
argues that as such, Hamerbod's obligation did not arise until
18
November 9, 2006, when Plaintiff sent Hamerbod a letter demanding
19
payment, and that Hamerbod did not breach this obligation until
20
twenty days later, when it failed to pay within the timeframe
21
provided by Plaintiff.
22
does not state that Defendants were aware of this agreement and
23
consented to it, "it is more than reasonable to assume" they did.
24
Opp'n at 10.
25
Id.
Opp'n at 8.
Plaintiff
Plaintiff argues that although the FAC
Defendants call this argument "completely disingenuous."
26
Reply at 4.
They cite California law requiring amendments or
27
modifications to written contracts to be in writing.
28
Cal. Civ. Code § 1689).
Id. (citing
They note that the Agreement contained a
10
1
merger clause which stated that it "constitutes the entire
2
understanding between the parties," and as such California's parol
3
evidence rule does not permit varying its terms.
4
argue that if Plaintiff claims the parties made a subsequent oral
5
agreement, California's two-year statute of limitations for breach
6
of oral contracts would have run no later than November 2008.
7
Finally, Defendants cite section 360.5 of California's Code of
8
Civil Procedure, which requires a written agreement signed by the
9
person obligated to extend the time to sue.
Id.
Id. at 5.
Defendants argue
United States District Court
10
For the Northern District of California
They
that no such provision exists either in the Agreement or the
11
Guaranty, and no separate writing exists.
12
The Court agrees with Defendants.
Id.
Because the Agreement
13
clearly contemplates payment of the guarantee by September 30,
14
2005, Plaintiff's claim is time-barred unless the Agreement was
15
validly modified.
16
Hamerbod to pay would be barred by section 1689.
17
state a valid claim, it would have to allege that Hamerbod agreed,
18
in writing, to modify the terms of the Agreement, and that
19
Defendants either consented to this modification or agreed, in
20
writing, to modify the terms of the Guaranty.
21
modification would have to specifically state that the Agreement
22
was modified such that Hamerbod's obligation to pay was not to
23
accrue until Plaintiff sent Hamerbod a final demand for payment.
24
To the extent Plaintiff argues that the parties specifically agreed
25
to extend the time for Plaintiff to sue, Plaintiff does not allege
26
the existence of a writing signed by Hamerbod so stating.
An oral agreement to extend the deadline for
For Plaintiff to
Furthermore, this
27
Such a claim would be inconsistent with the judicially
28
noticeable communications before the Court and the allegations in
11
1
Plaintiff's Dutch Complaint.
Hamerbod's October 31, 2006 Letter
2
states that it represents Hamerbod's "final settlement" under the
3
Agreement.
4
receipt of the October 31, 2006 Letter, and writes: "It is our firm
5
conclusion that your firm has to pay us the 'guaranteed minimum'
6
under the guarantee."
7
4, 2006 Letter sent to DoveBid regarding "overdue accounts,"
8
Plaintiff states: "On repeated occasions we have urged your company
9
to perform your payment obligations toward us under our agreement
In the November 10, 2006 Letter, Plaintiff acknowledges
See Oct. 31, 2006 Letter.
In the December
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
dated 10 July 2003.
However all our attempts to induce your
11
company to pay the overdue accounts, have been ignored."
12
4, 2006 Letter.
13
and Hamerbod agreed that Hamerbod did not breach until it failed to
14
submit payment by November 29, 2006 -- rather, it heavily suggests
15
Plaintiff was attempting to collect on a debt which had already
16
become due.
17
inconsistent with the facts provided by these documents and
18
judicial admissions, the two factual accounts are irreconcilable.
See Dec.
This communication does not suggest that Plaintiff
Not only are the facts as Plaintiff alleged them
19
Finally, Plaintiff argues that even if its cause of action
20
against Hamerbod had accrued before November 29, 2010, its cause of
21
action against DoveBid had not, because "under the clear terms of
22
the Guarantee, DoveBid's duty to perform Hamerbod's payment
23
obligations did not arise until Grolsche demanded that it pay the
24
balance owed by Hamerbod under the Auction Agreement."
25
Opp'n at 7.
While the liability of a guarantor ordinarily accrues at the
26
same time as that of the principal, the parties can provide
27
otherwise in the terms of the guaranty.
28
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 359.5.
Bloom, 48 Cal. 2d at 799;
Plaintiff does not cite to a
12
1
specific provision in the Guaranty that supports this argument.
2
The Guaranty states that DoveBid "agreed to guarantee the due
3
performance by the Contractor [Hamerbod] of its obligations under
4
the Contract in the manner hereinafter appearing."
5
It provides that "if the Contractor is in default under the
6
Contract, then the Guarantor [DoveBid] shall indemnify and keep
7
indemnified the Employer [Plaintiff] against any loss, damages,
8
claims, costs and expenses which may be incurred by reason of such
9
default and it will itself perform the payment obligations under
It provides
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
the Contract at first demand of the Employer."
11
that DoveBid "shall in no event exceed the liability and payment
12
obligations of the Contractor to the Employee under the terms of
13
the Contract."
14
Id.
See Guaranty.
Id.
The Court finds none of this language to be the least bit
15
susceptible to a plausible interpretation that the parties sought
16
to replace the standard rules for accrual of guarantor liability.
17
To the extent that Plaintiff argues Defendants' promise to "perform
18
the payment obligations under the Contract at first demand of the
19
Employer" serves to alter the accrual of Defendants' liability for
20
statute of limitations purposes, such an argument is unavailing.
21
Under this reading, the guarantor's obligation would not accrue
22
until a demand was made on the guarantor by the principal; this
23
would permit the principal to evade the statute of limitations by
24
making its "first demand" on Defendants for payment years after
25
breach by the principal.
26
In light of the judicially noticeable documents before the
27
Court and Plaintiff's judicial admissions, the Court finds no
28
plausible scenario in which Plaintiff's claim against Defendants
13
1
would be valid.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES, WITH PREJUDICE,
2
Plaintiff's action against Defendants.
3
the issue of dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
The Court does not reach
4
5
6
V.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss
7
brought by Defendants DoveBid, Inc. and GoIndustry USA, Inc.
8
alleging breach of a written guaranty, and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE
9
Plaintiff Grolsche Bierbrouwerij Nederland, B.V.'s Complaint.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
14
Dated:
August 2, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
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?