Grid One Solutions, Inc. v. Elster Amco Water, LLC

Filing 29

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR HEARING ON 19 Motion to Dismiss and 20 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on November 13, 2015. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GRID ONE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Case No. 15-cv-03452-JSW

Plaintiff,
8

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR
HEARING

v.
9
10

ELSTER AMCO WATER, LLC,

Re: Docket Nos. 19, 20

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

14

OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON December 4,

15

2015, AT 9:00 a.m.:

16

The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

17

reargue matters addressed in those briefs, and it does not require any argument on the motion to

18

strike. In addition, the parties shall not file written responses to this Notice of Questions for

19

hearing.

20

If the parties intend to rely on legal authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED

21

to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing

22

and to make copies of those authorities available at the hearing. If the parties submit such

23

additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, without

24

argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the

25

opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

26
27
28

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.
1.

How does Plaintiff respond to Defendant’s argument, as set forth in the reply brief,

1

tha the argume and fact assertion set forth i the opposition brief ar not suppo
at
ents
tual
ns
in
re
orted by the

2

fac alleged in the Compla
cts
n
aint, includin the argum
ng
ments regard
ding whether certain prov
r
visions of

3

the MSA could be enforced See, e.g., Beltran v. C
e
d
d?
,
Capitol Reco
ords, LLC, N 12-cv-10
No.
002-YGR,

4

201 U.S. Dist LEXIS 820 at *6 (N Cal. Jun 13, 2012)
12
t.
025,
N.D.
ne
).

5

2.

In its reply brief, Defendant argues that Plaintif cannot rely on Article II.A.3 to
b
ff
y

6

sup
pport the dam
mages eleme of its clai because Plaintiff doe not allege that Defend failed to
ent
im,
es
e
dant
o

7

pro
ovide materials in accord
dance with a mutually ag
greed shipme date or m
ent
material relea
ase

8

sch
hedule. In pa
aragraphs 28 and 29, Pla
8
aintiff allege that Defen
es
ndant was un
nable to supp a
ply

9

con
ntractually re
equired num
mber of produ and faile to meet th product d
ucts
ed
he
delivery sche
edule.
The Co has cons
ourt
sidered the ar
rgument set forth in foot
tnote 1 of Defendant’s r
reply, which

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

is
is one inference the Court could draw from the alle
o
c
f
egations. It i not, howe
ever, the only inference.
y

12

Ac
ccordingly, what is Defen
w
ndant’s best argument th the allega
hat
ations in par
ragraphs 28-29 and 38.a

13

are not sufficie to state a claim for br
e
ent
reach of cont
tract?

14

3.

To the exten the Court must interpr the terms of the vario agreemen and
nt
ret
s
ous
nts,

15

mo
odifications thereto, that have been attached to th Complain does eithe party cont
t
a
he
nt,
er
tend that

16

the are mater
ere
rials outside the record th the Cour must consi
hat
rt
ider to resolv this motio
ve
on?

17

4.

Assuming th resolutio of Defend
hat
on
dant’s motion to dismiss involves a p
n
pure matter

18

l
p
n
of
solution befo the Cour issues a
ore
rt
of law, do the parties wish to engage in any form o dispute res

19

ruling on the motion?
m

20
21

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Novemb 13, 2015
ber
5

22
23
__
___________
__________
____
JE
EFFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

24
25
26
27
28
2