Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00678/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00678-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

CHANG-SU LIM,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BUCK INSTITUTE FOR AGE RESEARCH,

et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-00678 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 JULY 7, 2006:

The Court tentatively GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion for

judgment on the pleadings filed by defendants Buck Institute for Age Research (“the Buck”),

Judith Campisi (“Campisi”) and Gordon Lithgow (“Lithgow”) (collectively, the “Buck

Defendants”) and tentatively GRANTS the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by

defendants The Regents of the University of California (the “University”), Campisi, Andrew

Wyrobek (“Wyrobeck”), and Nan Liu (“Liu”) (collectively, the “University Defendants”). The

Court RESERVES RULING on whether to provide Plaintiff leave to amend. In violation of

this Court’s standing orders, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief twenty pages long and then filed

an “errata” making additional arguments in opposition to the Buck Defendants’ motion. 

Case 3:06-cv-00678-JSW Document 45 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff is hereby admonished to comply with this Court’s standing orders and is advised that

any future violations will be sanctioned.

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, without argument or additional briefing. C.f. 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 parties shall each have 20 minutes to address the following questions:

(1) Specifically what contract(s) does Plaintiff allege was breached by the Buck, Campisi (as

a representative of Buck) and Lithgow? For each contract that Plaintiff contends was

breached: 

(a) On what date was it entered into?

(b) Was the contract oral or written?

(c) If the contract was oral, who made the offer or negotiated on behalf of the Buck? 

If the contract was written, in what document(s) is the contract reflected?

(d) Who are the parties to the contract? 

(e) What were the terms of the contract?

(f) Where in the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) is this contract and subsequent

breach alleged or is Plaintiff seeking leave to amend to assert this contract?

(2) Does Plaintiff contend that he may hold Campisi or Lithgow liable for breaches of

contract or of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on contracts with

the Buck? If so, what authority, if any, does Plaintiff rely on for this proposition?

(3) Specifically, what fraudulent acts does Plaintiff allege the Buck, Campisi (as a

representative for the Buck), or Lithgow committed? 

(4) Specifically, what is the basis of Plaintiff’s emotional distress claims? To the extent

Plaintiff’s claims are premised on alleged conduct by Campisi, does Plaintiff contend

she was acting on behalf of the Buck or the University? 

Case 3:06-cv-00678-JSW Document 45 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

(5) In Plaintiff’s opposition, he states that in March 2004 he discovered a defamatory

statement made by Campisi to Larry Thompson and seeks leave to amend his defamation

claim to include this alleged statement. It appears that Plaintiff has waited more than

two years to seek leave to amend. Nevertheless, given that delay alone is insufficient to

deny leave to amend, see DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 187 (9th Cir.

1987), on what basis do the Buck Defendants argue that Plaintiff should be denied

leave?

(6) Do the parties have anything further to add?

Dated: July 6, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00678-JSW Document 45 Filed 07/06/06 Page 3 of 3