Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03356/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03356-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GO COMPUTER INC, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-03356 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULINGS AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON NOVEMBER 18, 2005:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities 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, without argument or additional briefing. See 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 grants Plaintiffs’ motion to remand and tentatively denies as

moot Defendant’s motion to stay.

Case 3:05-cv-03356-JSW Document 63 Filed 11/16/05 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

2

The parties each shall have fifteen (15) minutes to address the following questions:

1. Microsoft bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Although it

claims that Plaintiff Go Computer, Inc. (“Go Computer”) is a “straw man”, the

assignment from Lucent to Kaplan and Go Computer is not part of the record. 

Plaintiffs argue that Lucent does not retain an interest in the claims and that,

therefore, the assignment was a complete, albeit joint, assignment of the claims. 

a. What evidence is in the record that demonstrates the assignment in

question was a partial assignment?

b. If the answer to question 1.a is that there is no such evidence, why does

this not render this case squarely within the Provident line of cases and

distinguishable from Kramer v. Carribean Mills, Inc., 394 U.S. 823

(1963) and Grassi v. Ciba-Deighy, Ltd., 894 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1990)? 

Cf. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Products, Inc., 93 F.3d 593,

596 (noting that if an assignment is entire, it is likely to be found proper

and in reaching its conclusion that assignment in question was collusive

relying on fact that assignment was partial rather than complete

assignment); see also Amalgamated Gadget, L.P. v. Mack, 2004 WL

549483 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2004) (granting motion to remand where

evidence demonstrated that assignor made complete assignment of cause

of action). 

c. Does Microsoft concede that if this Court has any doubts about whether

removal jurisdiction exists, it must resolve those doubts in favor of

remanding the case to the state court? See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

2. Does Microsoft contend that Mr. Kaplan was the alter ego of the original Go

Corporation? (See Plaintiff’s Reply at 3 (claiming Kaplan had no original

interest in claims).) If so, what evidence is in the record to support that

contention?

3. As to both motions, are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

Dated: November 16, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-03356-JSW Document 63 Filed 11/16/05 Page 2 of 2