Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00791/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00791-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

ZACHARY HILE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE, INC.,

Defendant. /

BUTH-NA-BODHAIGE, INC.,

Third-Party Plaintiff,

 v.

SAP CANADA, INC., an Ontario Canada

Corporation; TRIVERSITY CORPORATION,

a Pennsylvania corporation; and ROES 1

through 10, inclusive, 

Third-Party Defendants.

 /

No. C 07-00791 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 NOVEMBER 16, 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 legal 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

Case 3:07-cv-00791-JSW Document 36 Filed 11/15/07 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

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 GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Third-Party

Complaint. Each party shall have ten minutes to answer the following questions.

1. Relying on Docksider, Ltd. v. Sea Technology, Ltd., 875 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1989),

Defendants contend that use of the word “solely” should have the same effect as

specifying England and Wales as the only venue for disputes. See Reply Br. at 5. 

a. What is Buth-Na’s best argument that use of the word “solely” does not render

the forum selection clause mandatory and enforceable?

2. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: November 15, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00791-JSW Document 36 Filed 11/15/07 Page 2 of 2