Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05760/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05760-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hisoft Technology International, Ltd
Defendant
Alana Kaselitz
Plaintiff
Melissa Kaselitz
Plaintiff
Tiak Koon Loh
Defendant

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALANA KASELITZ, an individual; and

MELISSA KASELITZ, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

HISOFT TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL,

LTD., a Cayman Islands exempt company;

and TIAK KOON LOH, an individual,

Defendants. /

No. C-12-5760 MMC

ORDER AFFORDING PLAINTIFFS

LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY;

CONTINUING HEARING ON

DEFENDANT HISOFT TECHNOLOGY

INTERNATIONAL, INC.’S MOTION TO

DISMISS OR STAY CLAIMS 

Before the Court is defendant hiSoft Technology International, Ltd.’s (“hiSoft”

Technology”) Motion to Dismiss or Stay Claims, filed November 19, 2012. Plaintiffs Alana

Kaselitz and Melissa Kaselitz have filed opposition, to which hiSoft Technology has replied. 

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion,

the Court, for the reasons set forth below, finds it appropriate to afford plaintiffs the

opportunity to file a surreply to address a new argument made in hiSoft’s Technology’s

reply.

In its moving papers, hiSoft Technology argues that each plaintiff agreed to arbitrate

certain claims under a provision included in an employment agreement governing plaintiffs’

employment with hiSoft Envisage, Inc. (“hiSoft Envisage”). (See Compl. Exs. D, F.) hiSoft

Envisage is not a party to the instant action, and hiSoft Technology, in its moving papers,

Case 3:12-cv-05760-MMC Document 26 Filed 01/04/13 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

2

does not discuss its standing to enforce the arbitration provisions nor did it submit a copy of

the agreements or any provision contained therein. In their opposition, plaintiffs submit

copies of the employment agreements, including the arbitration provisions (see Alana

Kaselitz Decl. Ex. A; Melissa Kaselitz Decl. Ex. A), and argue, inter alia, that hiSoft

Technology is not a party to the employment agreements and that the arbitration provisions

thus do not apply to the claims alleged in the instant action. In its reply, hiSoft Technology

argues it can enforce the arbitration provisions because the employment agreements

identify the employer as “the Company,” which “Company” is further defined to include

“affiliates” of hiSoft Envisage; it points out that the California Corporations Code defines

“affiliate” to include a “parent,” see Cal. Corp. Code §§ 150, 175, and submits evidence that

hiSoft Envisage is a wholly-owned subsidiary of hiSoft Technology.

Because plaintiffs have not had an opportunity to respond to the above-referenced

new argument and evidence, the Court finds it appropriate to afford plaintiffs an opportunity

to do so.

Accordingly, the Court sets the following schedule:

1. No later than January 18, 2013, plaintiffs shall file any surreply, not to exceed

seven pages in length, exclusive of exhibits, and limited to the issue of hiSoft Technology’s

standing to enforce the arbitration provisions in the employment agreements.

2. The hearing on hiSoft’s Technology’s motion is hereby CONTINUED from

January 18, 2013 to February 1, 2013, at 9:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2013 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05760-MMC Document 26 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 2