Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03452/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03452-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GRID ONE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ELSTER AMCO WATER, LLC, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-03452-JSW 

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR 

HEARING 

Re: Docket Nos. 19, 20 

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

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

2015, AT 9:00 a.m.: 

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

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

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

hearing. 

If the parties intend to rely on legal 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 of those authorities 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. Cf. 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 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, 

Case 4:15-cv-03452-JSW Document 29 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

tha

fac

the

201

sup

pro

sch

con

is o

Ac

are

mo

the

of l

rul

Da

at the argume

cts alleged in

e MSA could

12 U.S. Dist

2. 

pport the dam

ovide materi

hedule. In pa

ntractually re

The Co

one inferenc

ccordingly, w

e not sufficie

3. 

odifications t

ere are mater

4. 

law, do the p

ing on the m

IT IS S

ated: Novemb

ents and fact

n the Compla

d be enforced

t. LEXIS 820

In its reply b

mages eleme

als in accord

aragraphs 28

equired num

ourt has cons

e the Court c

what is Defen

ent to state a 

To the exten

thereto, that 

rials outside 

Assuming th

parties wish 

motion? 

SO ORDER

ber 13, 2015

tual assertion

aint, includin

d? See, e.g.,

025, at *6 (N

brief, Defen

ent of its clai

dance with a

8 and 29, Pla

mber of produ

sidered the ar

could draw f

ndant’s best 

claim for br

nt the Court 

have been a

the record th

hat resolutio

to engage in

RED. 

5

2

ns set forth i

ng the argum

, Beltran v. C

N.D. Cal. Jun

dant argues 

im, because 

a mutually ag

aintiff allege

ucts and faile

rgument set 

from the alle

argument th

reach of cont

must interpr

attached to th

hat the Cour

on of Defend

n any form o

in the oppos

ments regard

Capitol Reco

ne 13, 2012)

that Plaintif

Plaintiff doe

greed shipme

es that Defen

ed to meet th

forth in foot

egations. It i

hat the allega

tract? 

ret the terms

he Complain

rt must consi

dant’s motion

of dispute res

__

JE

Un

ition brief ar

ding whether

ords, LLC, N

). 

ff cannot rely

es not allege

ent date or m

ndant was un

he product d

tnote 1 of D

is not, howe

ations in par

s of the vario

nt, does eithe

ider to resolv

n to dismiss 

solution befo

___________

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

re not suppo

r certain prov

No. 12-cv-10

y on Article 

e that Defend

material relea

nable to supp

delivery sche

efendant’s r

ever, the only

ragraphs 28-

ous agreemen

er party cont

ve this motio

involves a p

ore the Cour

__________

WHITE 

District Judg

orted by the 

visions of 

002-YGR, 

II.A.3 to 

dant failed to

ase 

ply a 

edule. 

reply, which 

y inference. 

29 and 38.a

nts, and 

tend that 

on? 

pure matter 

rt issues a 

____ 

ge 

o

Case 4:15-cv-03452-JSW Document 29 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 2