Meras Engineering Inc. et al v. CH2O, Inc.

Filing 26

ORDER CONTINUING MAY 5, 2011 ORAL ARGUMENT TO MAY 26, 2011; DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Beeler on 4/28/11. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

Oakland Division
MERAS ENGINEERING, et al.,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

13
CH20, INC.,

No. C 11-00389 LB
ORDER CONTINUING MAY 5, 2011
ORAL ARGUMENT; DIRECTING
PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING

14
15

Defendant.
_____________________________________/

16

On January 26, 2011, Plaintiffs Meras Engineering, Rich Bernier, and Jay Sughroue filed a

17

complaint against Defendant CH2O, Inc. seeking declaratory relief and asserting a claim for unfair

18

competition. Complaint, ECF No. 1. They filed an amended complaint on February 28, 2011. ECF

19

No. 4. CH2O filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint on March 15, 2011. Motion to

20

Dismiss, ECF No. 9. Plaintiffs lodged an opposition to the motion on April 14, 2011 but CH2O did

21

not file a reply. Opposition, ECF No. 16.

22

On February 2, 2011, CH2O filed suit in the Superior Court of Washington in Thurston County

23

against Mr. Bernier and Mr. Sughroue. Peter Petrich Declaration, ECF No. 10 at 2, ¶ 2. Mr. Bernier

24

and Mr. Sughroue subsequently removed the case to the District Court for the Western District of

25

Washington. Id. at ¶ 3. That suit involves substantially the same parties and the same facts involved

26

in the case before this court. See 4/18/11 Order, CH2O v. Bernier, No. C 11-5153 RJB, ECF No. 15

27

at 1-4. After Plaintiffs filed their opposition in this case, Judge Robert Bryan, the presiding judge in

28

the Washington suit, issued an order denying Mr. Bernier and Mr. Sughroue’s motion to dismiss. Id.
C 11-00389 LB
ORDER RE 5/5/11 HEARING AND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

1

The order also disposed of a number of issues presented in CH2O’s current motion to dismiss

2

pending before this court. Id.

3

Because the parties have not had the opportunity to comment on that decision in this case, the

4

court ORDERS the parties to submit supplemental briefing that addresses the implications of Judge

5

Bryan’s April 18, 2011 order on CH2O’s current motion to dismiss pending before this court. The

6

supplemental briefing is due by May 12, 2011.

7
8
9
10

May 26, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 28, 2011
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Oral argument on CH2O’s motion to dismiss is HEREBY CONTINUED from May 5, 2011 to

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 11-00389 LB
ORDER RE 5/5/11 HEARING AND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

2