Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02516/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02516-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 49:81 Damaged Goods While Being Transported

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

NISSAN FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE

COMPANY LTD.; HITACHI DATA

SYSTEMS CORP.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BAX GLOBAL INC.;CATHAY PACIFIC

AIRWAYS, LTD.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 02-2516 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON NOVEMBER 18, 2005: 

The Court tentatively DENIES the motion for summary judgment filed by defendant

BAX Global, Inc. (“BAX”) and tentatively DENIES the cross-motion for summary judgment

filed by plaintiffs Hitachi Data Systems, Corporation and Nissan Fire and Marine Insurance Co.,

Ltd. (“Plaintiffs”) based on the existence of genuine issues of material fact. 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 Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The 

Case 3:02-cv-02516-JSW Document 160 Filed 11/16/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

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

The parties shall have fifteen minutes to address the following questions: 

(1) Does BAX contend the weight of the damaged product was 481 or 1,062 kilograms? 

What do Plaintiffs contend is the weight of the damaged product? 

(2) Under the rule of judicial estoppel, parties are generally prevented from prevailing in one

phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail

in another phase. New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001). In the motion

for partial summary judgment filed by Plaintiffs in July 2003, Plaintiffs argued that this

action was governed by the parameters of the Warsaw Convention, as amended by the

Hague Protocol. Plaintiffs now argue that the original Warsaw Convention applies. On

what basis are Plaintiffs changing their position? Why should Plaintiffs not be judicially

estopped from making this argument?

(3) Assuming argendo that the damage occurred outside the boundaries of an airport, do

Plaintiffs dispute that federal common law applies and that pursuant to federal common

law, damages are limited to $20 per kilogram? If so, on what basis?

(4) What is Plaintiffs’ response to BAX’s objections to the Second Declaration of Jeff

Sowers?

(5) In Motorola, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp., 308 F.3d 995, 1008 (9th Cir. 2002), the

Ninth Circuit held that prejudgment interest is permissible “in an appropriate case” to

assure that a plaintiff receives the full value of his limited damages. The court noted that

prejudgment interest in that case was permissible because the carrier’s damage liability

was fixed and limited by the Convention’s weight-based formula, and thus recovering

prejudgment interest would not convert a damage award into “full compensation” for the

plaintiff. Id. If the Court determines that the original Warsaw Convention applies to

this matter, and that BAX is not entitled to the weight-based damage liability limitations,

may the Court award prejudgment interest? 

(6) Do the parties have anything further to add?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-02516-JSW Document 160 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 2