Kaselitz et al v. Hisoft Technology International, Ltd et al
ORDER AFFORDING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY; CONTINUING HEARING ON DEFENDANT HISOFT TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY CLAIMS. No later than January 18, 2013, plaintiffs shall file any surreply, not to exceed seven pages in length, exclusive of exhibits, and limited to the issue of hiSoft Technology's standing to enforce the arbitration provisions in the employment agreements. The hearing on hiSoft Technology's motion is hereby CONTINUED from January 18, 2013 to February 1, 2013, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 4, 2013. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2013)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
ALANA KASELITZ, an individual; and
MELISSA KASELITZ, an individual,
No. C-12-5760 MMC
ORDER AFFORDING PLAINTIFFS
LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY;
CONTINUING HEARING ON
DEFENDANT HISOFT TECHNOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S MOTION TO
DISMISS OR STAY CLAIMS
HISOFT TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,
LTD., a Cayman Islands exempt company;
and TIAK KOON LOH, an individual,
Before the Court is defendant hiSoft Technology International, Ltd.’s (“hiSoft”
Technology”) Motion to Dismiss or Stay Claims, filed November 19, 2012. Plaintiffs Alana
Kaselitz and Melissa Kaselitz have filed opposition, to which hiSoft Technology has replied.
Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion,
the Court, for the reasons set forth below, finds it appropriate to afford plaintiffs the
opportunity to file a surreply to address a new argument made in hiSoft’s Technology’s
In its moving papers, hiSoft Technology argues that each plaintiff agreed to arbitrate
certain claims under a provision included in an employment agreement governing plaintiffs’
employment with hiSoft Envisage, Inc. (“hiSoft Envisage”). (See Compl. Exs. D, F.) hiSoft
Envisage is not a party to the instant action, and hiSoft Technology, in its moving papers,
does not discuss its standing to enforce the arbitration provisions nor did it submit a copy of
the agreements or any provision contained therein. In their opposition, plaintiffs submit
copies of the employment agreements, including the arbitration provisions (see Alana
Kaselitz Decl. Ex. A; Melissa Kaselitz Decl. Ex. A), and argue, inter alia, that hiSoft
Technology is not a party to the employment agreements and that the arbitration provisions
thus do not apply to the claims alleged in the instant action. In its reply, hiSoft Technology
argues it can enforce the arbitration provisions because the employment agreements
identify the employer as “the Company,” which “Company” is further defined to include
“affiliates” of hiSoft Envisage; it points out that the California Corporations Code defines
“affiliate” to include a “parent,” see Cal. Corp. Code §§ 150, 175, and submits evidence that
hiSoft Envisage is a wholly-owned subsidiary of hiSoft Technology.
Because plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to respond to the above-referenced
new argument and evidence, the Court finds it appropriate to afford plaintiffs an opportunity
to do so.
Accordingly, the Court sets the following schedule:
1. No later than January 18, 2013, plaintiffs shall file any surreply, not to exceed
seven pages in length, exclusive of exhibits, and limited to the issue of hiSoft Technology’s
standing to enforce the arbitration provisions in the employment agreements.
2. The hearing on hiSoft’s Technology’s motion is hereby CONTINUED from
January 18, 2013 to February 1, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 4, 2013
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
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?