Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04535/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04535-2/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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ARSAPE S.A.,

Plaintiff(s),

 v.

JDS Uniphase Corporation,

Defendant(s).

 /

NO. C 03-04535 JW 

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING;

RESETTING HEARING DATE AND

FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

Plaintiff Arsape S.A. (“Arsape”) filed suit against Defendant JDS Uniphase Corporation

(“JDSU”) alleging breach of contract and various other claims based primarily upon the cancellation

of certain purchase orders between Defendant JDSU and Plaintiff’s assignor, Donovan Micro-Tek

(“DMT”). JDSU answered and filed counterclaims against Arsape. JDSU also filed a third party

complaint against DMT. 

Presently before the Court are Arsape’s motion for summary judgment on Count II of its

complaint; Arsape and DMT’s motion for summary judgment on JDSU’s express contractual indemnity

claim; Arsape and DMT’s motion for summary judgment on JDSU’s equitable indemnity/contribution

claim; Arsape and DMT’s motion for summary judgment on JDSU’s claims respecting assignment; and

JDSU’s motion for summary judgment, partial summary judgment, and partial judgment on the

pleadings. Many, if not all, of the motions appear to be predicated upon California law, Canadian

law, and the UCC. Interestingly, however, the purchase orders at issue contain a choice of law

Case 5:03-cv-04535-JW Document 111 Filed 08/21/05 Page 1 of 3
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

provision, which states in pertinent part, “[t]he construction, interpretation and performance of this

Agreement is governed by the applicable law of the Province of Ontario and Canada.” Yet the

parties’ briefs lack any substantial analysis of the force and effect of the choice of law provision, or

for that matter any substantial analysis of the choice of law issue in general.

The Court is not prepared to proceed with the various pending motions until the choice of law

issue has been resolved. Accordingly, the parties are directed to submit supplemental briefing that

specifically sets forth which law applies to which claims and defenses, and why. The supplemental

briefing shall be filed and served no later than September 9, 2005. The hearing date for the pending

motions is continued to October 3, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. The further case management conference is also

continued to October 3, 2005, 9:00 a.m.

Dated: August 19, 2005 /s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-04535-JW Document 111 Filed 08/21/05 Page 2 of 3
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Gaylord A. Virden gavyls62@msn.com

Jeffrey J. Lederman jlederman@winston.com

Nicole P. Dogwill ndogwill@winston.com

Dated: August 21, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:__/s/JW Chambers________

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:03-cv-04535-JW Document 111 Filed 08/21/05 Page 3 of 3