Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02361/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02361-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

CLARKE AND REBECCA WIXON, et al.

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WYNDAM RESORT DEVELOPMENT CO.

(f/k/a TRENDWEST RESORTS, INC.), et al.

Defendants.

 /

No. C 07-02361 JSW

NOTICE OF ADDITIONAL

QUESTIONS FOR HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING

SCHEDULED ON APRIL 11, 2008, AT 9:00 A.M. The statements set forth in the Notice of

Questions for Hearing issued on April 9, 2008 apply here.

1. Is there a definition of “Voting Power” in the record?

2. The Security Agreement that is part of the Governing Documents provides, in part:

ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL

CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR (OWNER) COULD ASSERT

AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT

HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF, RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY

THE DEBTOR (OWNER) SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE

DEBTOR (OWNER) HEREUNDER. 

How does this notice impact Wyndham’s argument that it is not selling “goods” or

“services” under the CLRA?

3. According to the Governing Documents, Worldmark charges members a $150.00 fee to

transfer Vacation Credits. Doesn’t this fact suggest that a restriction on the ability to

transfer Vacation Credits on the open market impacts Worldmark by reducing the

amount of fees to which it would otherwise be entitled?

4. Plaintiffs contend that Wyndham violated the provisions of the Governing Documents,

including the Declaration, by, inter alia, abandoning the relative use value and taking

Case 3:07-cv-02361-JSW Document 110 Filed 04/10/08 Page 1 of 2
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

actions that preclude the “first come, first served” reservation system. What is

Plaintiffs’ best argument that any injuries arising from those alleged breaches are not

injuries to Worldmark and its membership as a whole?

Conversely, according to the Amended Complaint, Wyndham sells the Vacation Credits

at issue to Plaintiffs and make representations to Plaintiffs at the time of purchase. To

the extent Plaintiffs allege that they entered into a contract with Wyndham, what is

Wyndham’s best argument that Plaintiffs do not have a direct cause of action for alleged

breaches of that contract?

Dated: April 10, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02361-JSW Document 110 Filed 04/10/08 Page 2 of 2