Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02239/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02239-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES O. BRADLEY TRUST, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ZENITH CAPITAL LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-02239 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

REGARDING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE THIRD

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JANUARY 20, 2006 AT 9:00 A.M.:

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

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not

cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these

authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). The

parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

Case 3:04-cv-02239-JSW Document 164 Filed 01/17/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The Court tentatively GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a third amended

complaint.

The parties shall each have ten minutes to address the following questions:

1. In Defendants’ opposition, they represent that there are “serious attempts

underway to resolve” the litigation, but in the joint case management statement,

the parties represent that “settlement does not appear to be imminent.” Is there a

viable settlement amongst the parties to the current lawsuit and would the

addition of new parties significantly endanger resolution of this action? 

2. Defendants’ opposition to the motion appears to argue that the facts do not

actually support the theories alleged under the proposed amended complaint. 

Why are these arguments not more properly the subject of a motion for summary

judgment?

3. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

Dated: January 17, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-02239-JSW Document 164 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 2