Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04470/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04470-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

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

1

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Philips Medical Capital, LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MEDICAL INSIGHTS

DIAGNOSTICS CENTERS, INC., a

California corporation, et al., 

 Defendants.

_____________________________/

and related cross action 

_____________________________/

No. C-06- 4470 JSW (WDB)

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION RE

APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF

ATTACHMENT AND WRIT OF

POSSESSION

On October 24, 2006, defendants filed a document styled “Objection to

Proposed Order re: Applications for Writ of Attachment and Writ of Possession.”

Defendants’ “objection” in effect is a camouflaged motion for

reconsideration. Defendants have not, however, presented a proper basis for

obtaining leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Local Rule 7-9. Defendants’

failure to present an argument that existed at the time they filed their opposition to

the writ applications does not satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 7-9(b).

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-04470-JSW Document 49 Filed 10/25/06 Page 1 of 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

1Defendants “Objection” reiterated argument from their opposition to PMC’s motion to

dismiss defendants’ counterclaim. “Objection” at 3. Although mere allegations that PMS and

PMC are agents of each other might be sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, in order to

oppose the writ applications, defendants must present some evidence that would support a

finding that their claim is probably valid. This they have not done. “Objection” at 3 (“the

warranties made by PMSNA are binding on PMC because it has been alleged that PMC and

PMSNA were joint venturers and agents of each other.” Emphasis added).

2

Moreover, even if we were to consider the merits of defendants’ new

argument, we would RECOMMEND that the District Court find that defendants’

have not demonstrated the probable validity of their claim that representations

made by PMS should be attributed to PMC. See, Report and Recommendation,

filed October 11, 2006.1

IT IS SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.

Dated: October 25, 2006

/s/ Wayne D. Brazil 

WAYNE D. BRAZIL

United States Magistrate Judge

Copies to: 

parties, 

JSW, wdb, stats

Case 3:06-cv-04470-JSW Document 49 Filed 10/25/06 Page 2 of 2