Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01727/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01727-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bank One, Delaware, N.A.
Defendant
First USA Bank, N.A.
Defendant
Elizabeth Little
Plaintiff

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

ELIZABETH LITTLE and JULES

STRACHMAN, on behalf of themselves and

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BANK ONE, DELAWARE, N.A. and FIRST

USA BANK, N.A.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-01727 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE RULING

AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON DECEMBER 2, 2005 AT 9:00 A.M.:

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers 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. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). The

parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

The Court tentatively GRANTS Defendants’ motion to transfer and tentatively

GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
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 shall have 15 minutes to address the following questions:

1. The Court finds the motion to transfer well-taken and is inclined to transfer the

matter to either Delaware or New Jersey. The location of Plaintiffs’ counsel and

the location of some as-yet unspecified number of potential class members in

California does not indicate that this Court provides the proper forum. All of the

factors this Court must consider indicate that transfer is appropriate.

a. Although the Court is inclined to transfer the matter to Delaware,

what are the parties’ positions on the possible transfer to New

Jersey in the alternative?

b. As a procedural matter, must the Court resolve the outstanding

motion to dismiss prior to resolution of the transfer motion,

especially if the Court may deem it appropriate to grant leave in

any case? Is the goal of preserving judicial resources through

transfer served by deciding the motion to dismiss?

2. How do Plaintiffs maintain that federal law governing terms of credit does not

preempt the fraud claim under Delaware state law?

3. If the Court rules on the motion to dismiss, on what legal theory could the Court

grant leave to amend? The explicit contract terms appear to obviate the claim for

breach of contract and the attendant breach of the covenant of good faith and fair

dealing claim. The fraud claim appears to be preempted by federal law. On

what bases could Plaintiffs amend their complaint to allege a viable cause of

action?

4. Although it appears that the lack of notification to the credit cardholders of the

bank’s reduction of the credit limit is both supported by law and explicit in the

cardmember agreement, the effect of the reduction simultaneous with the bank’s

offer of the convenience checks puts the cardholders in an impossible Catch-22

situation. The cardholders may properly exercise the offer to use the

convenience check, but, completely unbeknownst to them, violate its terms. 

a. As a practical matter, why does the bank process the convenience

check when it would not process a credit card purchase over the

cardholders’ credit limit?

b. As a legal matter, it appears that the process is not a breach of the

cardmember contract, but does the convenience check offer, in

limited circumstances in which the credit limit has been reduced,

fail to constitute a viable offer to contract? 

5. Do the parties have anything further they wish to address?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE