Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04371/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04371-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank of Hawaii
Defendant
Megumi Hisamatsu
Plaintiff
Kaushal Niroula
Defendant

Document Text:

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

MEGUMI HISAMATSU,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KAUSHAL NIROULA,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-04371 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR

HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON NOVEMBER 30, 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. 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 Court tentatively grants, in part, the motion to extend time for service on

Defendant Niroula. The Court reserves issuing a tentative ruling on Defendant Bank of

Hawaii’s motion to dismiss and for a more definite statement.

Case 3:07-cv-04371-JSW Document 56 Filed 11/28/07 Page 1 of 3
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

The parties each shall have fifteen (15) minutes to address the following questions:

Motion to Extend Time for Service

1. What efforts has Plaintiff made to serve Defendant Niroula?

Motion to Dismiss

1. BOH contends that the Court should apply the law of Hawaii to all of Plaintiff’s claims. 

a. Does Plaintiff agree that Hawaii law should apply to claims against BOH?

b. If the Court were to determine that at least some of Plaintiff’s claims are

independent of the contractual relationship between her and BOH, would BOH

concur that California law should apply?

2. Is the Court correct in understanding that one of the bases on which Plaintiff seeks to

avoid the agreement entitled “Indemnification of Liability,” attached as Exhibit B to the

FAC, is that she was fraudulently induced by BOH to sign it? Given the factual

allegations in the FAC, what is BOH’s best argument that, on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion,

the Court can resolve whether that form bars Plaintiff’s claims?

a. What is BOH’s response to Plaintiff’s assertion that Hawaii does not make a

distinction between misrepresentations of fact and law?

b. Is the Court correct that Plaintiff wishes to amend her fraud claim to include

allegations that BOH did disclose to her that they would raise the arguments

presented in the motion to dismiss in defense of her claims? Does Plaintiff have

any authority that BOH was obligated to disclose this type of information? 

3. BOH asserts at page 10 of its motion that the relationship between Plaintiff and BOH is

“contractual, not duty based.” 

a. Does BOH concede that it has a duty to act with reasonable care in its

transactions with Ms. Hisamatsu, as an implied term of its contract? See Chazen

v. Centennial Bank, 61 Cal. App. 4th 532, 543 (1998). Does either party have any

Hawaii law that is either in accord or in conflict with Chazen?

b. With respect to its contention that Plaintiff cannot pursue tort claims because of

this allegedly contractual relationship, BOH primarily relies on cases discussing

Case 3:07-cv-04371-JSW Document 56 Filed 11/28/07 Page 2 of 3
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

tortious breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Does

BOH have any additional authority applying this principle to fraud claims? 

4. Plaintiff relies on cases that address the issue of personal jurisdiction to respond to

BOH’s argument that the Business and Professions Code § 17200 is not intended to

apply to conduct occurring outside of California that injures persons who do not reside

in California. 

a. What are the actions that Plaintiff contends took place within California that

would subject Defendant to liability under Section 17200, and does Plaintiff

have any additional authority to support her argument that the Court should

apply Section 17200 to BOH’s alleged conduct.

5. With respect to Plaintiff’s proposed amendments, BOH has asserted that Plaintiff could

be subject to Rule 11 sanctions for certain allegations in the proposed Second Amended

Complaint. How does Plaintiff respond to BOH’s concerns?

6. Are there any other issues the parties wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 28, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-04371-JSW Document 56 Filed 11/28/07 Page 3 of 3