Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05307/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-05307-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO,

Plaintiff, No. C 04-5307 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS AND

FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE MOTION TO STRIKE

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. _______________________________

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

_______________________________/

The motion of cross-defendant City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”) for an

order dismissing Counts 4 and 5 of defendant and cross-complainant Bombardier

Transportation (Holdings) USA, Inc. (“Bombardier”), for failure to state a claim, and

alternative motion to strike, came on for hearing before this court on March 29, 2006. 

CCSF appeared by its counsel Kris A. Cox, and Bombardier appeared by its counsel Otto

Becker. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments, and

good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES the motion as follows and for the reasons

stated at the hearing. 

Based on the representation of Bombardier’s counsel at the hearing that

Bombardier’s fourth and fifth counterclaims are contract claims, not tort claims, and the

representation that Bombardier does not seek tort damages in its counterclaims, but rather

Case 4:04-cv-05307-PJH Document 67 Filed 03/30/06 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

simply seeks to assert an alternative theory of contract recovery, the court finds that CCSF

has not established that the fourth and fifth counterclaims fail to state a claim, and has not

established that those counterclaims should be stricken. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:04-cv-05307-PJH Document 67 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2