Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04276/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04276-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

SHERI L. KENDALL, et al., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

VISA U.S.A. INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-04276 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON July

8, 2005 at 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities 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. Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance

on such authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS the Bank Defendants’ motion to dismiss without leave

to amend.

Case 3:04-cv-04276-JSW Document 119 Filed 07/06/05 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 parties shill have ten minutes to address the following questions:

1. What bearing do the cases cited in Plaintiffs’ opposition brief at pages 6-7 in

support of their third claim for consortium marketing have on the claims asserted

in the first amended complaint? If membership in an association is as a matter of

law insufficient to sustain a Section 1 claim, how does Plaintiff attempt to

maintain a cause of action under the theory of consortium marketing?

2. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04276-JSW Document 119 Filed 07/06/05 Page 2 of 2