Cubic Telecom Limited v. Wang

Filing 59

FURTHER ORDER Granting Partial Summary Judgment and Continuing Pre-Trial Dates by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CUBIC TELECOM LIMITED,

Case No. 14-cv-02956-EDL

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

CHENGBEN WANG,
Defendant.

FURTHER ORDER GRANTING
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND CONTINUING PRE-TRIAL
DATES

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On August 20, 2015, this Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary

13

judgment. Dkt. No. 47. In that Order, the Court endeavored to explain to the parties in detail the

14

Court’s reasoning and the very narrow issue that survived summary judgment. However, in

15

advance of an upcoming settlement conference and other pre-trial deadlines, the parties requested

16

a telephone conference to discuss the scope of the Order and the upcoming trial. The Court held a

17

telephone conference on September 28, 2015 during which it clarified the scope of its prior Order

18

and also issues the following Further Order on Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.

19

For the reasons stated during the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, in

20

the Order denying the motion for summary judgment, and during the telephone conference on

21

September 29, 2015, there is no genuine dispute as to Cubic’s breach of contract claim and the

22

claim has been established as a matter of law. See Dkt. # 47 at 10 (“the elements for breach of

23

contract are met”). The Court’s prior Order did not expressly state that this conclusion was a

24

ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(g), which provides that: “If the court does not

25

grant all the relief requested by the motion, it may enter an order stating any material fact--

26

including an item of damages or other relief--that is not genuinely in dispute and treating the fact

27

as established in the case.” By way of this Order, the Court clarifies that Cubic’s breach of

28

contract claim has been established as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 56(g).

1

Similarly, for the reasons stated during the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for summary

2

judgment, in the Order denying the motion for summary judgment, and during the telephone

3

conference on September 29, 2015, there is no genuine dispute as to any of the affirmative

4

defenses presented by Defendant in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, except

5

for the affirmative defense of fraudulent inducement regarding the October 4, 2011 email

6

regarding investor funding commitments. See Dkt. # 47 at 15 (“[o]n the record before this Court,

7

the only potentially false or misleading statement regarding Peregrine’s present financial condition

8

made to Mr. Wang prior to him signing the Note that could support a theory of fraudulent

9

inducement is contained in an October 4, 2011 email chain”). Pursuant to Rule 56(g), there is no
genuine dispute as to any of the other theories of fraudulent inducement raised by Defendant in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

opposition to the motion for summary judgment.

12

The parties dispute the impact of the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s ability to raise other

13

theories of fraudulent inducement at trial. Plaintiff argues that Mr. Wang is legally precluded

14

from going to trial on any defense other than fraudulent inducement regarding the October 4, 2011

15

email regarding investor funding commitments, while Defendant argues that he may pursue his

16

defense of fraudulent inducement on other bases as well. Defendant shall notify Plaintiff by

17

September 29, 2015 if he intends to pursue any other theories of fraudulent inducement, and if so

18

the parties shall file a joint letter providing legal support for their positions by no later than

19

October 2, 2015. As agreed during the telephone conference, the parties shall file the required

20

initial pre-trial filings by 9:00 a.m. Monday October 5, 2015 and the required responsive pretrial

21

filings by 9:00 a.m. Monday October 12, 2015. The pretrial conference will be held at 10:00 a.m.

22

on Wednesday October 21, 2015. Trial is set for November 9, 2015.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 28, 2015

26
________________________
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
2