Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02584/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02584-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GABANA GULF DISTRIBUTION, LTD., et

al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

GAP INTERNATIONAL SALES, INC., et

al.

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-02584 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss. At oral argument,

plaintiffs asserted that, in the choice of law provision of the New Distribution Agreement, the

parties stipulated to be treated as California residents for purposes of the agreement. 

Therefore, plaintiffs argued, Gabana satisfies the requirement of the California Franchise

Relations Act (“CFRA”) that the franchisee be domiciled in California in order for the CFRA

to apply. Defendants responded by asserting that interpreting the choice of law provision in

this manner would contradict the clear intention of the legislature to restrict the application of

the CFRA to California franchises only. Neither party, however, at oral argument or in the

memoranda before the Court, addressed the interplay between California Business and

Professional Code sections 20010 and 20015 in light of these arguments. The Court hereby

ORDERS the parties to submit supplemental briefing on this issue no later than Friday,

August 11, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-02584-CRB Document 28 Filed 08/08/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2006\2584\order 1.wpd 2

In particular, the parties shall address whether and to what extent section 20010

applies to section 20015. That is, does the choice of law provision of the New Distribution

Agreement “waive compliance” of section 20015? Or, is a stipulation by the parties

sufficient to satisfy section 20015’s residency requirement?

The parties’ submissions shall not exceed 10 pages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02584-CRB Document 28 Filed 08/08/06 Page 2 of 2