Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02302/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02302-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Counter-defendant
Motorola, Inc.
Counter-claimant

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

1

Defendant did not provide the Court with a chambers copy of its reply, which was

electronically filed July 7, 2006. The Court, nonetheless, has considered the filing. For

future reference, defendant is reminded of the following provision in the Court’s Standing

Orders: “In all cases that have been assigned to the Electronic Case Filing Program, the

parties are required to provide for use in chambers one paper copy of each document that

is filed electronically. The paper copy of each such document shall be delivered no later

than noon on the day after the document is filed electronically. The paper copy shall be

marked ‘Chambers Copy’ and shall be delivered to the Clerk’s Office in an envelope clearly

marked with the judge’s name, case number, and ‘E-Filing Chambers Copy.’”

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MOTOROLA, INC.,

Defendant /

No. C-06-2302 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING

HEARING

Before the Court is defendant Motorola, Inc.’s motion, filed May 26, 2006, to dismiss

plaintiff Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has filed

opposition, to which defendant has replied.1 Having considered the papers filed in support

of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision on the

papers, VACATES the hearing scheduled for July 21, 2006, and rules as follows:

Case 3:06-cv-02302-MMC Document 16 Filed 07/19/06 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

2

1. A case or controversy exists, in that the parties disagree as to whether

defendant, at the present time, has any obligations under the contract at issue, (see

Morgan Decl. Exs. 4, 5), and, in particular, whether defendant has a current obligation to

provide security with respect to ongoing work, in the form of a letter of credit in the amount

of $3,000,000, (see id. Ex. 6). See Maryland Cas. Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S.

270, 273 (1941) (holding case or controversy warranting issuance of declaratory relief

exists where “there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal

interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality”). Accordingly, defendant is not entitled to

dismissal based on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

2. Defendant has not shown plaintiff’s claims, as a matter of law, accrued more than

four years before the date plaintiff filed the instant action. Accordingly, defendant is not

entitled to dismissal based on the statute of limitations.

3. Defendant has not shown plaintiff’s claims, as a matter of law, are barred by the

general release executed by plaintiff on November 10, 2003. (See Cerney Decl. Ex. A.4.) 

Accordingly, defendant is not entitled to dismissal based on the general release.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 19, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02302-MMC Document 16 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 2