Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02239/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-02239-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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

CHARLES O. BRADLEY TRUST, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ZENITH CAPITAL LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-02239 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

REGARDING MOTION TO

DISMISS EIGHTH CLAIM FOR

RELIEF FROM SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND

MOTION TO STRIKE

ALLEGATIONS OF FIDUCIARY

DUTY

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JANUARY 20, 2006 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers 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. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). The

parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

Case 3:04-cv-02239-JSW Document 165 Filed 01/17/06 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

2

The Court tentatively GRANTS the Albrecht Defendants’ motion to dismiss the eighth

claim for relief without leave to amend and tentatively GRANTS the Albrecht Defendants’

motion to strike the allegations regarding fiduciary duty.

The parties shall each have ten minutes to address the following questions:

1. Do the Albrecht Defendants move to strike just paragraph 52 subsection (D) of

the second amended complaint regarding allegations of fiduciary duty owed to

plaintiffs, or do the defendants seek to dismiss the entire cause of action for

misrepresentation? What are the specific page and line designations that the

Albrecht Defendants move to strike?

2. Can Plaintiffs maintain a cause of action for misrepresentation against the

Albrecht Defendants under the holding in Murphy v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 113

Cal. App. 4th 687, 694 (2003)?

3. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

Dated: January 17, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-02239-JSW Document 165 Filed 01/17/06 Page 2 of 2