Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05585/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05585-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VISA USA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARITZ INC,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-05585 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 22, 2008 AT 1:30 P.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties

reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on 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 available at the hearing. If

the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the

authorities only, with reference to pin cites and 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 DENIES Defendant’s motion to stay arbitration pending

determination of arbitrability; tentatively GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to stay action and

compel arbitration; and tentatively DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for discovery.

Case 3:07-cv-05585-JSW Document 75 Filed 02/21/08 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

The parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

1. What is the current status of the arbitration proceedings?

2. If Visa failed to mention anything at all with regard to its potential damages, how is that

a “partial, misleading and ambiguous” statement or conduct relating to their disclosures

prior to the July 9 Agreement? (See Plaintiff’s motion for discovery at 7.) Are

Plaintiff’s in-house attorney’s subjective, unexpressed, and mistaken impressions

probative as to whether Visa made any misrepresentation? 

3. Maritz repeatedly contends that Visa told them nothing at all about its own claim for

damages prior to the signing of the Agreement. Under what theory did such a duty

arise? How can a claim for fraudulent inducement lie where there was no specific

disclosure (except a reservation of rights as to damages) as opposed to partial

disclosure? Does the parties’ agreement to act in good faith implicate a duty to disclose

a specific damages amount as opposed to a general reservation of rights?

4. Are Maritz’s initial challenges to the whole Agreement, and not only to the arbitration

provision, binding as representations that Maritz intended to challenge the whole

Agreement? Do the subsequent letters indicating a challenge only to the arbitration

provision change the analysis?

5. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05585-JSW Document 75 Filed 02/21/08 Page 2 of 2