Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05098-6/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TK POWER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEXTRON, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5098 EMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

(Docket No. 61)

Defendant Textron, Inc. has filed a motion to strike the first amended complaint filed by

Plaintiff TK Power, Inc. Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, the

Court hereby finds that the matter may be resolved based on the papers alone and DENIES the

motion to strike.

I. DISCUSSION

On October 7, 2005, the Court issued an order granting TK’s motion for leave to file an

amended complaint. In the order, however, the Court also required TK to file a more definite

statement with respect to its claim for promise without intent to perform/negligent

misrepresentation. TK was instructed (1) to file immediately the proposed first amended complaint

attached to its motion for leave to amend and (2) to file its more definite statement by October 19,

2005.

It appears that TK did not strictly comply with the Court’s order of October 7. TK did

immediately file on October 8, 2005, a first amended complaint. However, it was not the same

document that had been attached to its motion for leave to file an amended complaint. In addition,

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 77 Filed 11/28/05 Page 1 of 4
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

TK did not file by October 19 a more definite statement. Instead, the first amended complaint that

was filed on October 8 contained additional allegations apparently designed to address the need for a

more definite statement.

As a preliminary matter, the Court finds that, although there has not been strict compliance

with its order of October 7, it shall not strike the first amended complaint filed on October 8 on that

basis. To do so would elevate form over substance; moreover, Textron has not been prejudiced in

any way.

Textron argues, however, that the first amended complaint filed on October 8 is still

deficient. More specifically, it asserts that TK has still failed to allege facts showing that Textron

had an intention not to be bound by the terms of the contract at the time of formation. See Mot. at 3.

In its October 7 order, the Court stated as follows:

Although it may be argued that TK has not provided facts to

support an inference of fraudulent intent at the time of formation, this

problem does not make the proposed claim futile. TK contends that

scienter is inferred from the fact that Textron “has expressly denied in

its admissions responses that it had planned to buy on-board high

frequency chargers from TK when it entered into the agreement with

TK.” Reply at 4. Such an allegation, if provided in a more definite

statement, would suffice.

Order of 10/7/05, at 5.

In response to the statement above, TK included the following allegation in its first amended

complaint filed on October 8:

34. At the time defendant made the above-referenced

promises, it had no intention of honoring them. Plaintiff has a number

of reasons for believing that defendant never intended to comply with

its promise to purchase chargers from it. In particular, defendant

evidenced its 2002 intent not to comply with its promises to purchase

chargers by denying, in response to plaintiff’s third admission request

propounded in the instant action, that it “selected TK Power to

develop and produce [emphasis added] an on-board high frequency

charger for you.” Defendant further denied, in response to the eight

admissions request propounded in the instant action, that “at some

time in 2002, [it] planned to buy on-board high frequency chargers

from TK Power after successful development of an on-board high

frequency charger and completion of testing of it.”

FAC ¶ 34.

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 77 Filed 11/28/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

The Court finds that, by including the above allegation, TK has sufficiently supported its

claim for promise without intent to perform/negligent misrepresentation. 

Textron tries to argue otherwise for two reasons. First, it asserts that TK’s “shorthand

reference to the requests [for admission] and answers are misleading.” Mot. at 4. As fully set out,

“there is no basis upon which a reasonable person could infer that, at the time of formation of the

contract, there was an intent not to be bound by its terms.” Id. The Court disagrees. The Court has

independently reviewed the requests for admission at issue and the responses. The first amended

complaint alleges that Textron never had the intent to abide by its promises at the time that it made

them, i.e., that it hired TK to develop and produce chargers, and the factual bases for this allegation

are Textron’s denials to the requests, in which it claimed that it only agreed to buy five prototype

chargers.

Second, Textron argues that “[r]esponses to requests for admission are not the type of facts

which the court in Hsu, supra, and Silicon Knights, Inc v. Crystal Dynamics, Inc., 983 F. Supp.

1303, 1315 (N.D. Cal. 1997), require to support a claim.” Id. at 5. But Hsu and Silicon Knights do

not hold that one cannot infer a fraudulent intent based on a response to a request for an admission. 

Moreover, this Court already held otherwise in its October 7 order; this is the law of the case.

II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Textron’s motion to strike is denied. The hearing on

the motion, which was set for December 7, 2005, is also VACATED. The Further Status

Conference set for 10:30 a.m. on December 7, 2005 has been changed to 2:30 p.m. on December 7,

2005.

This order disposes of Docket No. 61

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2005

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 77 Filed 11/28/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 77 Filed 11/28/05 Page 4 of 4