Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05380/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-05380-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 196
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF OAKLAND,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COMCAST OF CALIFORNIA/COLORADO, LLC;

COMCAST CORPORATION, 

Defendants. /

No. C 06-5380 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF LEAVE

TO FILE MOTION

FOR PARTIAL

RECONSIDERATION

AS MOOT

Plaintiff City of Oakland moves for leave to seek partial

reconsideration of the Court's February 14, 2007 Order Granting in

part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (February

14, 207 Order). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks leave to ask the

Court to reconsider the portion of the Order granting Defendant

Comcast Corporation's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's sixth cause of

action for breach of oral contract in the First Amended Complaint

(FAC). The Court DENIES this request as moot.

Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) states as follows: "No party may

notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave

of Court to file the motion." A motion for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration may only be granted if the moving party shows: 

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material

Case 4:06-cv-05380-CW Document 53 Filed 03/29/07 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

difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented

to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which

reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in

the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for

reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of

the interlocutory order; or (2) The emergence of new material

facts or change of law occurring after the time of such order;

or (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material

facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to

the Court before such interlocutory order.

Civil L.R. 7-9(b). 

In the February 14, 2007 Order, the Court granted Defendants’

motion to dismiss the claim for breach of oral contract on the

ground that the oral agreement falls within the subject matter of

the Change of Control Agreement (CCA), would materially alter the

terms of the CCA, and thus was precluded by the integration clause

in the CCA. February 14, 2007 Order at 12-13. The Court granted

Plaintiff leave to amend “to plead facts indicating that Comcast

Corporation entered into a separate oral contract with the City,

not inconsistent with the terms of the CCA.” Id. at 3. 

On March 5, 2007, Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint

(SAC) in which its seventh cause of action is breach of oral

contract against Comcast LLC, but not against Comcast Corporation,

the only defendant sued on this cause of action in Plaintiff’s FAC. 

In the SAC, Plaintiff appears to have attempted to follow the

Court’s instructions to allege that the oral agreement was separate

from and not inconsistent with the terms of the CCA. For instance,

in paragraph 35 of the SAC, Plaintiff alleges, “In entering into

this oral agreement, representatives of Comcast Corporation,

Comcast LLC and the City understood that they were entering into a

new agreement relating to the franchise renewal. The parties did

Case 4:06-cv-05380-CW Document 53 Filed 03/29/07 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

not intend or even contemplate at the time they entered into this

agreement that they were amending the terms of the existing

Franchise or any previous agreement relating to the existing

Franchise, including the Change of Control Agreement.” Paragraph

109 of the SAC alleges, “The oral agreement made by Comcast

Corporation and Comcast LLC –- that Comcast LLC would accept the

franchise renewal if the franchise renewal ordinance and the cable

regulatory ordinance were adopted by the City Council in the form

and substance agreed to at that meeting –- was a wholly new

agreement, and did not amend either the Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) or the CCA.” Paragraph 110 of the SAC explains that the CCA,

which was fully consummated in 2002, addressed the rights and

obligations of the parties concerning the City’s approval of the

application of transfer of control of the franchise and had nothing

to do with the informal franchise renewal agreement that was

negotiated in 2005. Paragraph 111 provides, “Although the March

21, 2005 oral agreement furthered the performance of the parties’

obligations under the MOU, the oral agreement was a separate

contract from the MOU. The MOU was a promise by the Franchisee

concerning certain terms that would be included in any future

informally renewed franchise. The oral agreement was a promise

that Comcast LLC would accept this particular franchise renewal

agreement, which contained numerous material terms and conditions

that were not addressed in the MOU.”

In the SAC, although Plaintiff attempted to follow the Court’s

instructions to plead facts indicating that Comcast Corporation

entered into a separate oral contract with the City, not

Case 4:06-cv-05380-CW Document 53 Filed 03/29/07 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

inconsistent with the terms of the CCA, it did not bring the breach

of oral contract cause of action against Comcast Corporation. 

Instead, it brought the breach of oral contract claim against

Comcast LLC and filed a request for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of the Court’s ruling that the oral contract was

excluded by the integration clause of the CCA.

Based on the above, there is no need for Plaintiff to file a

motion for reconsideration. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to

amend the claim against Comcast Corporation to allege that the oral

contract was different from and was not inconsistent with the terms

of the CCA. Because Plaintiff may have misinterpreted the Court’s

order, the Court grants Plaintiff one week to file a Third Amended

Complaint (TAC) to bring the breach of oral contract claim against

Comcast Corporation as well as Comcast LLC. If Defendants wish to

file a motion to dismiss this claim, they may do so one week

thereafter.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

file a motion for reconsideration is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3/29/07

Dated 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-05380-CW Document 53 Filed 03/29/07 Page 4 of 4