Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02362/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02362-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Property Damage

---

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

CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SHAPY INTERNATIONAL,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-02362 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED June 22,

2007, AT 9:00 A.M.:

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 parties each shall have twenty (20) minutes to address the following questions:

1. What is Defendant’s response to the factual assertions made in Plaintiff’s reply

brief regarding the amount in controversy?

Case 3:07-cv-02362-JSW Document 33 Filed 06/20/07 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

2. a. To the extent Plaintiff argues that it would be irreparably harmed if the

Defendant were to destroy the Billboard or remove it from the Premises,

what is Defendant’s best argument that Plaintiff does not have an

adequate remedy at law?

b. To the extent Plaintiff’s arguments pertain to Defendant’s decision to rent

the Billboard to another entity, what is Plaintiff’s best argument that such

action would cause it irreparable harm? 

3. There appear to be two separate interests at stake in this case: (1) the ownership

rights in the Billboard structure; and (2) the rights to lease the space on which

the Billboard sits. Would Defendant agree with this assessment? If not, on what

basis?

4. Is Plaintiff relying solely on its first cause of action for conversion to establish

the likelihood of success on the merits?

5. There is contrary evidence in the record with respect to whether the Lease was

an asset of the Bankruptcy Estate. For example, the Lease is signed by James

Kevin Murphy in his individual capacity, rather than on behalf of Eleventh Street

Enterprises, LLC, the “Debtor.” (See Powers Decl., Ex. A; see also Berthiaume

Declaration, Ex. 5 (Letter dated Feb. 24, 1999 to Mr. Murphy referencing lease

between “you and Eller Media Company’s ... predecessor...”). However, there is

also a letter dated September 11, 2000, from Plaintiff’s former counsel to

Defendant’s former counsel, which suggests that the Lease belonged to the

Debtor. (See Berthiaume Decl., Ex. 7.)

a. Is there any concrete evidence as to whether the Lease was an asset of the

Bankruptcy Estate? If not, how should the Court resolve this factual

dispute at this procedural stage of the litigation?

b. What is Defendant’s best argument, on these facts, that the Lease was an

asset of the Bankruptcy Estate, such that it was required to be rejected,

assumed or assigned?

Case 3:07-cv-02362-JSW Document 33 Filed 06/20/07 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

6. What is Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s argument that the Lease continued in

full force and effect because it was not expressly assumed or rejected? (See

Reply at 7 (citing Matter of Greystone III Joint Venture, 995 F.2d 1274, 1281

(5th Cir. 1992)). 

a. Does either party have any information on whether Docket Nos. 19 and

25, which relate to the assumption or rejection of non-residential real

property lease, (1) pertain to the Lease in question in this case and (2)

were ever approved by the Bankruptcy Court?

b. If the Lease was not rejected, on what other basis, if any, does Defendant

contend it was terminated? 

c. If the Lease was not rejected or otherwise terminated, on what basis does

Defendant contend that the renewal terms were not enforceable?

7. Does Plaintiff contend that the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 363(f) have any impact

on the resolution of this motion? If so, on what basis? See 11 U.S.C. § 363(f)

(“The trustee may sell property under subsection (b) or (c) of this section free

and clear of any interest in such property of an entity other than the estate, only

if– (1) applicable nonbankruptcy law permits sale of such property free and clear

of such interest; (2) such entity consents; (3) such interest is a lien and the price

at which such property is to be sold is greater than the aggregate value of all

liens on such property; (4) such interest is in bona fide dispute; or (5) such entity

could be compelled, in a legal or equitable proceeding, to accept a money

satisfaction of such interest.”)

8. Is there any evidence in the record to contradict the pleadings in the Bankruptcy

proceedings that suggest Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest did not in fact, have

notice of the motion that resulted in the sale of the Premises to Defendant?

9. Does either party have any information as to why the Lease not included in the

motion regarding the sale of the Premises? 

Case 3:07-cv-02362-JSW Document 33 Filed 06/20/07 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

a. Does Plaintiff dispute the fact that the Lease was not recorded, as

contemplated by its terms?

b. The Commercial Real Estate Purchase Contract encouraged inspection. 

Did Defendant inspect the Premises? What is its response to Plaintiff’s

assertion that the existence of the sign is “open, notorious and

continuous?” (See Reply Br. At 10 n.3.)

10. Does either party have any information as to why the provision requiring the

seller not to enter into a lease for a billboard display was included in the

Commercial Real Estate Purchase Contract attached to the Bankruptcy Court’s

Order of Sale of the Premises?

11. Is there anything further either party wishes to address?

Dated: June 20, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02362-JSW Document 33 Filed 06/20/07 Page 4 of 4