City of Oakland v. SSA Terminals, LLC et al

Filing 90

ORDER REGARDING NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON 4/17/12. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 4/13/12. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 8 9 CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal Corporation, Acting By and Through Its Board of Port Commissioners, v. 11 Northern District of California United States District Court NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR HEARING Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant, 10 12 Case No.: 11-01446-YGR SSA TERMINALS, LLC, et al., Defendants-Counterclaimants. 13 14 15 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE 16 FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON APRIL 17, 2012 AT 2:00 17 P.M. 18 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant City of Oakland’s (“Port”) 19 Motion for Summary Judgment of the Counterclaim. The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and 20 does not wish to hear the parties simply re-argue the matters addressed in those pleadings, but will 21 hear limited argument on matters addressed therein. In addition, the parties are directed to address 22 the following questions: 23 As to the issue of whether Defendants-Counterclaimants SSA Terminals, LLC and SSA 24 Terminals (Oakland), LLC (collectively, “SSA”) were excused from the filing requirements of the 25 Government Claims Act: 26 27 28 1. Does the Port agree that the basic purposes behind the Government Claims Act’s filing requirement were satisfied by SSA’s conduct beginning as early as July 2009? 1 2. Given that the counterclaim alleges that SSA has “suffered and continues to suffer 2 substantial damages in an amount to be determined at trial,” does SSA concede that 3 the counterclaim seeks affirmative relief? Is there any authority that the counterclaim 4 is “purely defensive” to the Port’s declaratory relief action? 5 3. Does SSA have any authority that the exception to the Government Claims Act claim 6 requirement described in People ex rel. Dept. of Parks and Recreation v. West-A- 7 Rama, Inc. and Krainock v. Superior Court should be expanded to a tort counterclaim, 8 where the initial complaint filed by the city sought declaratory relief and no monetary 9 damages? 10 11 As to the issue of the accrual of actual injury: 1. Do the parties have any authority involving similar factual circumstances where actual Northern District of California United States District Court 12 injury based on a contract (or a tort based on a contract) was found to have accrued at 13 any time other than the execution of the contract or the effective date of the contract? 14 2. Does SSA contend that actual injury could only result from actual competition between 15 POA and SSA? If so, what is SSA’s legal authority that a competitive relationship is 16 required for there to be actual injury? 17 3. Given that SSA knew of the favorable rental rates that were to be given to POA as 18 early as March 2009 and no later than July 2009, how was injury resulting from the 19 Concession and Lease Agreement (“POA Lease”) not perceptible to SSA at those 20 times? Could SSA have alleged a claim against the Port during this time even though 21 the amount of damages may not be fixed? 22 4. Based on the July 8, 2009 letter, SSA stated it was foreseeable to the Port that SSA 23 would continue to lose substantial volume to POA. Why does injury not accrue from 24 here? 25 5. Does SSA have any authority for the distinction it makes between the damages based 26 on International Transportation Services, Inc.’s (“ITS”) lease and the POA Lease, 27 where the damage based on both leases consisted of lost business or income and 28 differing rental rates? 2 1 If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs to answer the Court’s 2 questions, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities by 3 Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit 4 such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit in the notice the citations to the authorities, 5 with reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing, and to attach the authorities 6 thereto. Cf. Civil L. R. 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain 7 their reliance on such authority. The parties are advised to limit their additional authorities (and 8 volume thereof) to that which is truly pertinent to and directly addresses the Court’s questions. 9 10 11 The Court suggests that associates or of counsel attorneys who are working on this case be permitted to address some or all of the Court’s questions contained herein. IT IS SO ORDERED. Northern District of California United States District Court 12 13 Dated: April 13, 2012 _________________________________________ 14 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?