Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01252/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01252-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

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

WILLIAM ZABIT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FERRETTI GROUP, USA, et al.

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-01252 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON OCTOBER 6, 2006, AT 9:00 A.M.:

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. 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 parties each shall have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

Case 3:06-cv-01252-JSW Document 65 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 3
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

I. Case Management Conference

In the joint case management conference statement, Zabit asserts that he anticipates

filing a second amended complaint. The parties are HEREBY ORDERED to meet and confer in

advance of Friday’s hearing to discuss the contours of the proposed amendment and the impact,

if any, on the pending motions. The Court shall conduct the case management conference prior

to the hearing on the motions.

II. Ferretti Motion to Dismiss.

The Court tentatively grants Ferretti’s motion but reserves on whether leave to amend

should be granted.

1. What provisions of the Ferretti Limited Warranty does Zabit contend Ferretti

breached?

2. Ferretti argues that the exclusion of coverage of the engines in its Limited

Warranty, which would appear to the Court to be the warranted product in

question, precludes liability to Zabit on Counts I and II. 

a. What is Zabit’s best argument that the express terms of Ferretti’s Limited

Warranty excluding the engines do not bar any claims by him against

Ferretti? See 15 U.S.C. § 2310(f). On what authority does Zabit rely to

support his argument?

III. Caterpillar and Peterson Motions to Dismiss.

The Court tentatively grants Caterpillar and Peterson’s motions and also tentatively

grants Zabit leave to amend his complaint.

1. In its Reply, Peterson asserts an “Agent’s Privilege” defense. However, in

moving to dismiss Zabit’s claims, Peterson only asserted that the claims are

barred by the release, that Zabit lacked privity with Caterpillar, and that

Caterpillar had disclaimed implied warranties. Why should the Court consider

this belated argument? What is Zabit’s response to this argument?

2. Zabit has asserted breach of implied warranties in Count I of his Amended

Complaint. He then asserts a separate claim for breach of the implied warranty

Case 3:06-cv-01252-JSW Document 65 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

of merchantability under the UCC. Is the Court correct that Zabit pleads a

Magnusson-Moss claim and a separate UCC claim? If the Court is correct in its

understanding, on what basis does Zabit assert privity of contract is not required

for the UCC claim?

3. Does Caterpillar dispute that it issued a Limited Warranty with respect to the

engines to Plaintiff? If not, with respect to its assertion that Zabit’s implied

warranty claims fail because he is not in vertical privity with Zabit, why does its

Limited Warranty not create the requisite “direct contractual nexus” for purposes

of privity? See Atkinson v. Elk Corp. of Texas, 142 Cal. App. 4th 212, 229 (2006)

(holding that manufacturer of roof shingles brought itself into direct privity with

consumer for purposes of breach of implied warranty claim under MagnusonMoss Warranty Act, where it issued express written warranty in brochure). Is

California law the appropriate state law to apply to this claim? 

4. With respect to the “economic duress” argument, if the Court accepted as true the

allegations set forth in Zabit’s declaration for purposes of determining whether

amendment would be futile, why is the issue of whether the release bars his

claims not better addressed on summary judgment? See CrossTalk Productions,

Inc. v. Jacobson, 65 Cal. App. 4th 631, 644 (1998). Do Defendants have any

authority supporting their position that this issue is appropriately resolved at the

pleadings phase?

Dated: October 3, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01252-JSW Document 65 Filed 10/03/06 Page 3 of 3