Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05056/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05056-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC.,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-5056 PJH 

v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 

DISMISS AMENDED 

COUNTERCLAIM

DICON FIBEROPTICS, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Lucent Technologies, Inc.’s (“Lucent”) motion to

dismiss DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc.’s (“DiCon”) amended counterclaim and its accompanying

request for judicial notice came on for hearing before this court on May 9, 2007. Lucent

appeared through its counsel, Lawrence Butler. DiCon appeared through its counsel,

Benjamin Riley. Having read all the papers submitted and carefully considered the relevant

legal authority, the court hereby GRANTS Lucent’s motion to dismiss in part, DENIES the

motion to dismiss in part, and DENIES Lucent’s request for judicial notice, for the reasons

stated at the hearing, and as follows. 

Lucent’s request to take judicial notice of the declaration of Robert Schleicher and

the accompanying exhibits is improper for the reasons stated at the hearing. The

Schleicher declaration was prepared in response to a motion to transfer venue, and it does

not purport to contain the entire history or description of all contracts at issue in this case. 

In addition, Lucent improperly asks the court to take judicial notice of the facts contained

therein for the truth of the matter asserted. See, e.g., San Luis v. Badgley, 136 F. Supp. 2d

1136, 1146 (E.D. Cal. 2000) (court “may take judicial notice of a document filed in another

court not for truth of matters asserted in the litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such

litigation and related filings”) (citation omitted). 

Case 4:06-cv-05056-PJH Document 54 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 3
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

With regards to Lucent’s motion to dismiss, the following claims are adequately pled

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8: Breach of Implied Warranty; Promissory

Estoppel; Common Count for Money Paid; Common Count for Work and Labor Done;

Unjust Enrichment; Quantum Meruit; Violation of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and

Violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200. However, DiCon has not

adequately pled claims for Breach of Contract and the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair

Dealing, Breach of Express Warranty, and Negligent Misrepresentation. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 requires that a complaint “contain ... a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

8(a). Under the “notice pleading” standard embraced by Rule 8, a plaintiff satisfies the rule

when he or she includes “sufficient allegations to put defendants fairly on notice of the

claims against them.” McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). In alleging

breach of contract and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, DiCon has

generally alleged the existence of contractual agreements, including a series of written 52-

week forecasts made by Lucent to DiCon concerning the number of switches Lucent would

require. See Am. Counterclaim ¶¶ 27-28, 30-32. However, DiCon’s allegations are

insufficient, as it has failed to plead the terms of the contracts allegedly breached, including

the number of switches Lucent agreed to purchase in each contract. 

In alleging breach of express warranties, DiCon alleges that Lucent “expressly

warranted to DiCon that the LC Connectors would conform to their promises concerning the

LC Connectors.” Am. Counterclaim ¶ 20. However, DiCon has not alleged what promises

were made, and has failed to give Lucent adequate notice of that claim under Rule 8.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires that "in all averments of fraud or

mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity." 

To meet this standard, the pleading must provide "the who, what, when, where, and how of

the misconduct charged . . . . The plaintiff must set forth what is false or misleading about a

statement and why it is false." Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1106 (9th

Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). The court may dismiss the complaint for failure to comply

with Rule 9(b). Id. at 1107-08. DiCon alleges that Lucent made negligent

Case 4:06-cv-05056-PJH Document 54 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 3
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

misrepresentations concerning the number of switches that it would purchase from DiCon,

including but not limited to 52-week forecasts showing that Lucent would purchase in

excess of 12,000 switches. These allegations, however, do not identify the time of the

alleged misrepresentations, the amounts of each forecast, or the individuals involved in the

various transactions. 

Accordingly, the court dismisses DiCon’s claims for Breach of Contract and the

Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Breach of Express Warranty, and Negligent

Misrepresentation with leave to amend. DiCon shall amend its counterclaim within 30

days. Lucent shall have 20 days to respond to DiCon’s counterclaim.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2007 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-05056-PJH Document 54 Filed 05/10/07 Page 3 of 3