Colorado and Santa Fe Energy Company, LLC et al-v-Nexant, Inc.

Filing 27

Notice of Tentative Ruling and Questions for Hearing. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 2, 2012. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

COLORADO AND SANTA FE ENERGY
COMPANY, LLC

10

No. C 12-00011 JSW

11

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE
RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR
HEARING

v.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Plaintiff,
12
NEXTANT, INC.,
13
Defendant.
14
/
15
16

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

17

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

18

MAY 4, 2012, AT 9:00 A.M.:

19

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

20

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

21

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

22

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

23

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

24

authorities only, with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf.

25

N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to

26

explain their reliance on such authority. The Court suggests that associates or of counsel

27

attorneys who are

28

1

working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court’s questions contained

2

herein.

3

The Court tentatively denies Nexant’s motion to dismiss, and the parties each shall

4

have fifteen (15) minutes to address the following questions:

5

1.

Does Nexant contend that the conditions at issue were “conditions precedent” or
concurrent conditions? It appears to take inconsistent positions in its briefs. (Compare
Motion at 2 with Reply at 5.)

2.

Colorado has alleged that as to the first quarter, it did not deliver RECs within the
Delivery Period because it could not do so by virtue of WREGIS’ structure. It also
explains that it used the attestation method, because Nexant stated that it would only
accept RECs that were delivered within the Delivery Period. Does Nexant have any
additional authority to show that these facts are, as a matter of law, insufficient to allege
that Colorado’s performance of the conditions was excused?

6
7
8
9
10

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

a.

What is Colorado’s response to Nexant’s argument on reply that Colorado
cannot argue that it was excused from performing by operation of law, because
WREGIS is not a governmental entity?

b.

How would Section 14 of the Master Agreement impact this argument, if at all?

11
12
13
14

3.

Does Nexant have any additional authority to support its argument that RECs are
“goods” as that term is used in California Commercial Code 2105(1)?

15

a.

16

Apart from the issue of materiality, are there any other factual disputes that
Colorado contends would preclude the Court from determining whether, as a
matter of law the perfect tender rule precludes it from showing that Nexant
breached the contract?

17
4.
18

What is Nexant’s response to the argument that the breach of contract and breach of
implied covenant claims are not duplicative?

19
Dated: May 2, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2