The Guarantee Company of North America USA v. F. Rodgers Corporation et al

Filing 21

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 5/23/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

THE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF NORTH
AMERICA USA,

10

No. C 12-02085 JSW

11

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE
RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR
HEARING ON MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER

v.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15

F. RODGERS CORPORATION, F.
RODGERS SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS,
INC., FRANK E. RODGERS, and DOES 1100, inclusive,
Defendants.

16
/
17
18

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

19

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

20

HEARING SCHEDULED ON MAY 25, 2012 AT 9:00 A.M.:

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court’s

2

questions contained herein. The Court DENIES Defendant’s request to continue the hearing.

3

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order.

4

The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

5

1.

Does Defendant Frank E. Rodgers dispute that he is personally liable as an individual
signatory on the indemnity agreement? (See Declaration of Jeffrey Jubera, Ex. 1 at 6,
7.)

2.

Plaintiff’s proposed order only requests relief to enjoin Rodgers from transferring
personal assets with a value in excess of $5,000 and a statement of financial condition.
In its reply papers, however, Plaintiff seeks to have the Court require that Rodgers
provide Plaintiff “immediate access to his books, records, accounts, databases, and other
documents and information.” (See Reply at 7.) The indemnity agreement provides that
the signatories “shall furnish to [Plaintiff] such information as it may request concerning
their financial condition.” (Jubera Decl., Ex. 1 at 2, ¶ 9.) What is the specific scope of
information Plaintiff seeks and is it entitled to broad access to information at this
procedural juncture?

3.

Could Plaintiff get a judgment to set aside any transfers of property, thereby rendering
their potential harm reparable? (See Opp. Br. at 6.)

4.

Should the Court grant the restraining order, what is the appropriate amount of bond?

5.

Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

6
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
Dated: May 23, 2012
18

JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2