Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06508/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06508-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Best of the Bay Collision Repair
Plaintiff
State Farm General Insurance Company
Defendant
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Defendant
Vince Zito
Plaintiff

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

VINCE ZITO, individually and dba BEST OF

THE BAY COLLISION REPAIR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, STATE FARM MUTUAL

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,

and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-06508 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

JANUARY 5, 2007:

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. Cf. 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 shall not file written responses to the questions posed in this

notice.

Case 3:06-cv-06508-JSW Document 25 Filed 01/03/07 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

The parties each shall have ten (10) minutes to address the following questions:

1. It its reply brief, Plaintiff argues that State Farm General Insurance Company

(“State Farm General”) responded to Form Interrogatory 3.1 by providing an

Illinois address as its principal place of business. Plaintiff contends that State

Farm General’s response to Form Interrogatory 3.1 is attached to Exhibit B to the

Declaration of Steven H. Schultz but has not actually provided State Farm

General’s response to this interrogatory to the Court. If Plaintiff has State Farm

General’s response to Form Interrogatory 3.1, Plaintiff is directed to file a copy

of it by no later than 4:00 p.m on January 4, 2007. 

If State Farm General stated that its principal place of business is in Illinois in

response to an interrogatory, should it be treated as an admission? If so, what

weight, if any, should the Court give such admission in determining the location

of State Farm General’s actual principal place of business with respect to State

Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm Mutual”)’s removal. 

What authority, if any, do the parties have for their respective positions?

2. Do the parties have anything further to add?

Dated: January 3, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06508-JSW Document 25 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2