Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05585/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05585-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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

1

 In response to the parties’ joint letter seeking clarification dated January 18, 2008,

the Court RESETS the hearing date and adopts the stipulation regarding the briefing

schedule.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISA USA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARITZ INC,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 07-05585 JSW

AMENDED ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE

REQUEST TO CONTINUE

HEARING AND EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR DISCOVERY

The Court has received the parties’ briefs on the pending administrative request to

continue the hearing on Visa U.S.A., Inc. (“Visa”)’s pending motion to compel arbitration and

ex parte application for discovery filed by Defendant Maritz, Inc. (“Maritz”). Having

considered the arguments submitted by the parties, the administrative motion is DENIED. The

moving papers do not constitute a proper motion for administrative relief under Civil Local

Rule 7-11. The matters contained therein are not miscellaneous administrative matters. In

addition, the Court finds the professed need for emergency attention to Maritz’s ex parte

request for discovery is entirely of Maritz’s own making. 

However, in order to resolve the merits of the issue regarding whether there is a need for

discovery to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement, the Court SETS the issue for

hearing on February 29, 2008 at 9:00 a.m.1

 Maritz shall file an opening brief not to exceed 15

Case 3:07-cv-05585-JSW Document 44 Filed 01/18/08 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

pages by January 25, 2008 setting out its legal argument regarding why and what discovery is

necessary to demonstrate that the agreement to arbitrate was fraudulently induced. The Court is 

particularly concerned with whether there was any duty to exercise reasonable care to disclose

the matter(s) potentially in question. See, e.g., Restatement 2d Torts, § 551. Visa shall file an

opposition not to exceed 15 pages by no later than February 4, 2008. Maritz may file a reply

not to exceed 10 pages by no later than February 11, 2008. 

The hearing on the pending motions to stay arbitration and to compel arbitration are

CONTINUED to February 29, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. The reply brief on the motion to stay

arbitration shall still be filed by January 18, 2008. The opposition to the motion to compel

arbitration shall still be filed by January 18, 2008 and the reply in support of that motion shall

still be filed by January 25, 2008. The Court is mindful that this may entail some arguments in

the alternative. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 18, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05585-JSW Document 44 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 2