Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04470/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04470-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

 PHILIPS MEDICAL CAPITAL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MEDICAL INSIGHTS DIAGNOSTICS

CENTERS, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

AND RELATED CROSS COMPLAINT

 /

No. C 06-04470 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON DECEMBER 15, 2006:

The Court TENTATIVELY GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the

motions to dismiss filed by Third-Party Defendant Philips Medical Systems North America, a

division of Philips Electronics North America, Inc. (“PMSNA”) and by Cross-Defendant

Phillips Medical Capital, LLC (“PMC”). 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

Case 3:06-cv-04470-JSW Document 59 Filed 12/14/06 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

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 is trying to understand what facts Cross-Complainant and Third-Party

Plaintiff Medical Insights Diagnostic Centers, Inc. (“MIDC”) currently knows or can plead on

information and belief to support its claims. If MIDC later discovers new facts which may

support additional claims, MIDC may move for leave to amend at that time. However, the

claims currently plead must be supported by sufficient facts or MIDC would be subject to Rule

11 sanctions. Most significantly, the Court is trying to determine what contract, including the

form of such contract (oral, written, or implied) MIDC is suing on, what the essential terms of

such contract(s) are, and how the contract(s) were allegedly breached.

Each party will have twenty minutes to address the following questions:

(1) What does MIDC contend the contract was between it and PMSNA? What are the terms

of this contract? Is it oral or written? If written, what document or documents form the

contract?

(2) MIDC argues in opposition to the motions that “PMSNA intended to shield itself from

liability by placing boilerplate disclaimers of warranty and limitations of remedy in

certain documents upon which PMSNA intended to rely when MIDC became aware that

the equipment did not work as promised.” (Opp. to PMSNA’s Mot. at 6; Opp. to PMC’s

Mot. at 6.) To what documents are MIDC referring?

(3) Does MIDC contend that PMSNA was supposed to sell the MRI directly to MIDC, but

instead, sold it to PMC?

(4) In opposition to PMC’s motion, MIDC argues that it is not yet clear if or how the MRI

was sold to it. MIDC argues that it might have purchased the MRI pursuant to a verbal

agreement, an implied agreement, or as part of the Master Lease Agreement (“MLA”). 

(Opp. to PMC’s Mot. at 15.) 

(a) Even if MIDC does not yet know the legal relationship between PMSNA and

PMC, how does MIDC not know the circumstances of if and how the MRI was

sold to it, separate from which entity sold it to MIDC?

Case 3:06-cv-04470-JSW Document 59 Filed 12/14/06 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

(b) Other than the legal relationship between PMSNA and PMC and what PMSNA

and PMC may have agreed to with each other, are there any other types of facts

that MIDC claims are currently unknown which affect what claims MIDC may

bring?

(5) In light of the written contracts signed by MIDC, what warranties or other remedies, if

any, does MIDC contend it would have against PMSNA if PMSNA and PMC were

actually one company?

(6) Based on what facts, if any, does MIDC allege that PMC sold the MRI to MIDC

pursuant to a verbal or implied contract? (Opp. to PMC’s Mot. at 18.) Does MIDC

agree that if there was no verbal or implied contract selling the MRI to MIDC, then

MIDC does not have a claim for breach of implied warranties against PMC? If not, on

what basis does MIDC assert such a claim?

(7) What promises does MIDC contend PMSNA or PMC made that were in addition to the

contract(s) for the sale and/or lease of the MRI?

(8) Do the parties have anything further to add?

Dated: December 14, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-04470-JSW Document 59 Filed 12/14/06 Page 3 of 3