American Licorice Company v. Total Sweeteners, Inc. et al
Filing
104
ORDER Re Supplemental Briefing Re 94 . Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/15/2014. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
AMERICAN LICORICE COMPANY,
9
Plaintiff,
No. C-13-1929 EMC
ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
v.
TOTAL SWEETENERS, INC., individually
and doing business as BATORY FOODS,
INC.,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
14
15
16
On August 14, 2014, Defendant Total Sweeteners, Inc. filed a motion for summary
17
judgment. In that motion, Defendant argues summary adjudication is appropriate with regards to the
18
issue of whether the December 2011 Sales Contract, see FAC Ex. A, was lawfully modified by later
19
Purchase Orders sent from Plaintiff to Defendant. FAC Ex. B; Docket No. 94.
20
Notwithstanding this Court’s prior language stating that mutual assent to potentially modify
21
the Sales Contract is an issue properly reserved for resolution by the jury, Docket No. 31, Defendant
22
now cites United States Surgical Corp. v. Orris, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 1201 (D. Kan 1988) and TRA
23
Indus. v. Valspar Corp., 72 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 808 (W.D. Wash. 2010) for the proposition that a
24
party’s assent to a purported contract modification “cannot be inferred merely from a party’s
25
conduct in continuing with [an existing] agreement.” United States Surgical Corp., 5 F. Supp. 2d at
26
1206; see also TRA Indus., 72 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 808 (“Actions taken in accordance with an
27
existing contractual obligation cannot indicate assent to a modification thereof. For a party’s course
28
of performance to indicate assent to a modification, the performance must . . . differ from the
1
performance already required of the party by the existing contract.”) (citing Arizona Retail Sys. v.
2
Software Link, 831 F. Supp. 759 (D. Ariz. 1993); Alaska Pacific Trading Co. v. Eagon Forest
3
Prods., 933 P. 2d 417 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997)); Wachter Mgmt. Co. v. Dexter & Chaney, Inc., 144 P.
4
3d 747, 755 (Kan. 2006) (holding that party’s “actions in continuing the preexisting contract do not
5
constitute express assent to the terms” contained in a later proposal to modify that contract);
6
Western Sky Indus. v. Colttech, LLC, 69 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 566 (D. Kan 2009) (“The fact that a
7
party continues in a contract after additional or different terms have been received by that party is
8
not sufficient to establish consent to those additional or different terms.”).
9
Plaintiff is hereby ordered to file a supplemental brief, not to exceed seven (7) pages in
length, addressing the legal authorities cited above. Plaintiff should also provide the Court with
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
contrary authority, if any, with particular emphasis on authority from courts interpreting or applying
12
the relevant law(s) of California, Illinois, or Oregon. Plaintiff may not attempt to supplement the
13
existing summary judgment record or otherwise put new facts before the Court. Plaintiff’s
14
supplemental brief is due no later than Tuesday, September 23, 2014.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
Dated: September 15, 2014
19
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?