Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00247/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-00247-9/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 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 07-247

ORDER RE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 1/30/2008**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DAVANZIA, S.L., a Spanish corporation,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

LASERSCOPE, INC., a California corporation, and

AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., a

Minnesota corporation,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 07-247

ORDER RE REQUEST FOR 1

CLARIFICATION

LASERSCOPE, INC., a California corporation, and

AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., a

Minnesota corporation,

 Cross-Complainants,

 

 v.

DAVANZIA, S.L., a Spanish corporation,

 Cross-Defendant.

 

Counsel for Laserscope, Inc. (“Laserscope”) and American Medical Systems, Inc.

Case 5:07-cv-00247-JF Document 91 Filed 01/30/08 Page 1 of 4
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

Case No. C 07-247

ORDER RE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

(JFLC1)

(“AMS”) seeks clarification of the Court’s Order dated January 22, 2008 granting Davanzia, S.L.

(“Davanzia”) leave to amend its complaint. Laserscope is a wholly owned subsidiary of AMS. 

AMA twice has moved to dismiss Davanzia’s complaint in its entirety. On April 27, 2008, the

Court granted AMS’s motion without prejudice on the grounds that Davanzia had not sufficiently

alleged an alter ego relationship between Laserscope and AMS. On July 30, 2007, the Court

dismissed the claims asserted against AMS in the Second Amended Complaint explaining, “it is

possible that discovery will reveal additional facts relevant to the negotiation of the Agreement or

the relationship between AMS and Davanzia. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss will be granted

without prejudice to a future motion for leave to amend should discovery reveal such relevant

facts.” The Court also dismissed with leave to amend Davanzia’s claims for damages based on

termination of the Authorized International Distributor Agreement (“the Agreement”) between

Davanzia and Laserscope. On January 9, 2008, Davanzia filed a motion for leave to amend its

Second Amended Complaint, arguing that amendment was necessary because during discovery it

had become aware of facts supporting a claim that Laserscope had breached the exclusivity

provision of the Agreement. The Court granted the motion without oral argument. Davanzia’s

Third Amended Complaint asserts claims against ASA without including any new allegations

regarding its termination claim ASA’s alter-ego status or its involvement in any of the alleged

dealings with Davanzia. 

Counsel for Laserscope and ASA requests confirmation that this Court’s Order of July

30, 2007 applies to all parties and all claims that were dismissed by that Order and are reasserted

in the Third Amended Complaint. The Court confirms that all claims against ASA and the

termination claim against all parties were dismissed without prejudice. Davanzia has not added

any additional allegations with respect to the dismissed claims. The inclusion of these claims in

the Third Amended Complaint was inappropriate and the Court thereby CLARIFIES its order

dated January 22, 2008 by striking the allegations from the Third Amended Complaint.

IV. ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case 5:07-cv-00247-JF Document 91 Filed 01/30/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Case No. C 07-247

ORDER RE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

(JFLC1)

DATED: January 30, 2008.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-00247-JF Document 91 Filed 01/30/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case No. C 07-247

ORDER RE REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

William J. Frimel bill.frimel@dlapiper.com

Margaret A. Crawford maggie.crawford@dlapiper.com

Dianne L. Sweeney dianne@pillsburylaw.com

Gary Hansen ghansen@oppenheimer.com

Heather N. Hoecke hhoecke@oppenheimer.com

Case 5:07-cv-00247-JF Document 91 Filed 01/30/08 Page 4 of 4