Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03852/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-03852-5/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STERILE CONTAINMENT 

TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-3852 PJH 

v. ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO DISMISS

NELSON LABORATORIES, INC.,

 Defendant.

___________________________________/

Defendant’s second motion to dismiss plaintiff’s fourth cause of action came on for

hearing before this court on December 6, 2006. Defendant Nelson Laboratories, Inc.

(“defendant”) appeared through its counsel, James Belshe. Sterile Containment

Technologies, LLC (“plaintiff”) did not appear. Having read the papers filed in conjunction

with the motion and carefully considered the arguments and the relevant legal authority, the

court hereby GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for

the reasons stated at the hearing, and summarized as follows:

The court previously granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s fourth cause of

action for breach of fiduciary duty with leave to amend so that plaintiff could plead the

existence of a relationship giving rise to such fiduciary duty. In the first amended complaint

(“FAC”) plaintiff again pleads breach of fiduciary duty and bases this claim on an agency

relationship between it and defendant and on defendant’s use of the words “confidential

and proprietary” on its testing protocols. 

Neither argument has merit. First, although plaintiff alleges the existence of an

agency relationship, it alleges no facts that would support a finding that defendant acted as 

Case 4:06-cv-03852-PJH Document 40 Filed 12/06/06 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

its agent at any time. As Michelson v. Hamada, 29 Cal App.4th 1566 (2003), a case cited

by plaintiff, points out, “[a]n agent is one who represents another, called the principal, in

dealings with third persons.” Id. at 1579. Not only is there no allegation that defendant

undertook to act on plaintiff’s behalf with a third party, the undisputed facts, taken from

plaintiff’s complaint, are that defendant did not submit plaintiff’s application to the FDA and

that plaintiff received the deficiency notice directly from the FDA. The allegation that

defendant’s promotional materials contained the words “testing partner” does not change

this result.

Second, defendant’s use of the words “confidential and proprietary” on the testing

protocols similarly do not give rise to a relationship that would support a finding of fiduciary

responsibility on defendant’s part. Rather they suggest a simple relationship of trust that

attends any contractual relationship. See Wolf v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

107 Cal. App.25, 31 (2003).

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action is GRANTED. 

Because plaintiff has already attempted on two occasions to plead a proper claim and

because the court finds that a further attempt would be futile based on the facts alleged in

the complaint, the dismissal is without leave to amend. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2006

_____________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-03852-PJH Document 40 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 2