Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02362/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02362-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SHAPY INTERNATIONAL,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-02362 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 MAY 4, 2007, 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 Court tentatively DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s application for a temporary

restraining order based on the Defendant’s apparent willingness to agree to maintain the status

quo, and thus there does not appear to be a threat of imminent harm. The Court tentatively

Case 3:07-cv-02362-JSW Document 18 Filed 05/03/07 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

2

grants Plaintiff’s request to direct Defendant to show cause as to why a preliminary

injunction should not issue. 

The parties each shall have twenty (20) minutes to address the following questions:

1. What is Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s apparent willingness to maintain the status

quo pending resolution of a motion for a preliminary injunction? 

2. Defendant disputes that Ms. Berthiaume was served with a copy of the application for

the TRO, the supporting memorandum, and the supporting affidavits on May 1, 2007. 

Does Plaintiff have an affidavit from the process server showing that Ms. Berthiaume

was, in fact, personally served with those papers on that date? 

a. Is that the basis for Defendant’s objections regarding personal jurisdiction, i.e. is

Defendant’s true argument is with respect to allegedly improper service?

b. What is Plaintiff’s response and on what basis did Plaintiff believe it had

authority to serve a copy of the Court’s Order setting the briefing schedule on

Mr. Romeo rather than on Defendant?

3. What is the basis for Defendant’s assertion that subject matter jurisdiction does not

exist?

4. What is Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s argument that injury to its goodwill and the

unique nature of the property satisfy the irreparable harm requirement?

5. Plaintiff’s proposed order provides that the TRO should issue without a bond. On what

authority does Plaintiff rely to support its position that a bond or undertaking is not

required?

6. Do the parties have anything further to add?

Dated: May 3, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02362-JSW Document 18 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 2