Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05334/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05334-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

SUMMA RESOURCE HOLDINGS 

LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CARBON ENERGY LIMITED, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-05334-TEH 

ORDER REGARDING 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING; 

CONTINUING HEARING 

 

On December 18, 2015, Defendant Carbon Energy Limited (“Carbon”) filed 

Motions to Dismiss and Strike. Docket No. 16. Plaintiff Summa Resource Holdings, LLC 

(“Summa”) timely opposed the motions. Docket No. 17. The matter is currently set for 

oral argument on February 22, 2016. 

Throughout its motions, Carbon repeatedly argues that Queensland law governs the 

share sale agreement (“Agreement”) entered into by the parties, and therefore applies to all 

claims arising from the Agreement. Docket No. 16 at 4, 8, 11, 13, 14-16, 21. In 

opposition, Summa requests that if the Court finds a choice of law determination to be 

necessary at this stage of the proceedings, the Court order the parties to submit 

supplemental briefs on the issue. Docket No. 17 at 9 n.7. 

Having considered the parties’ written arguments, the Court now finds that a choice 

of law determination may be necessary to rule on one or more aspects of Carbon’s 

motions. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Each party shall file a supplemental brief of no more than fifteen pages by 

March 1, 2016. The brief shall address: (1) the scope of the Agreement’s 

choice of law provision, including whether the provision reaches tort claims; 

(2) whether Queensland and California law direct different outcomes on 

Carbon’s motion to dismiss each of Summa’s eight claims; and (3) if the 

Court should find that Queensland law governs any claim, why the Court 

Case 3:15-cv-05334-TEH Document 25 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

should not decline to exercise its jurisdiction over this matter under the 

doctrine of forum non conveniens. 

2. Each party may file an opposition brief of no more than fifteen pages by 

March 15, 2016. Reply briefing is not permitted and will not be considered 

by the Court. 

3. The motion hearing previously set for February 22, 2016 is continued to 

March 28, 2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco. 

On that date, the parties shall come prepared to argue both the issues raised 

in Carbon’s motions and the issues raised in the supplemental choice of law 

briefing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 02/16/16 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-05334-TEH Document 25 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 2