Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03802/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03802-10/pdf.json

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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WRI WEST GATE SOUTH, L.P.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RELIANCE MEDIAWORKS (USA) INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03802-JD 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 87, 90

Because of the unique procedural posture of this case, the Court previously referred two 

pending motions to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on a report and recommendation 

basis: plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counter-complaint (Dkt. No. 55), and Reliance 

Mediaworks, Ltd.’s motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficient process and for lack of 

personal jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 68). See Dkt. No. 80. 

Now before the Court are Magistrate Judge Corley’s respective reports on those motions. 

Dkt. Nos. 87, 90. No objections have been filed in response to either report, and the time to file 

objections has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The Court has carefully reviewed both reports and finds them to be thorough and wellreasoned. The Court consequently adopts both reports in full. 

For the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Corley’s October 1, 2015 report and 

recommendation (Dkt. No. 87), plaintiff WRI’s motion to dismiss defendant Big Cinemas’ 

counter-complaint is granted as to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Causes of 

Action without leave to amend; granted as to Count Six with leave to amend; and denied as to 

Count Seven. Big Cinemas may file a counter-complaint amending its allegations for Count Six 

(and removing its First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth Causes of Action) by December 

Case 3:14-cv-03802-JD Document 101 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

9, 2015. The counter-complaint may not be amended in any other way (e.g., adding new claims or 

parties) without prior leave of court.

For the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Corley’s October 9, 2015 report and 

recommendation (Dkt. No. 90), defendant Reliance Mediaworks, Ltd.’s motion to dismiss WRI’s 

first amended complaint for insufficient service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction is 

denied.

The Court sets a further case management conference for January 6, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. in 

Courtroom 11 of the San Francisco courthouse.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-03802-JD Document 101 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 2