Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00963/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00963-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kangana Beri
Plaintiff
Tata America International Corporation
Defendant
Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd
Defendant
Tata Sons, Ltd
Defendant
Gopi Vedachalam
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 

GOPI VEDACHALAM and KANGANA 

BERI,on behalf of themselves 

and all others similarly 

situated

Plaintiff, 

 No C 06-00963 VRW

v

 ORDER

TATA AMERICA INTERNATIONAL

CORPORATION, a New York

corporation; TATA CONSULTANCY 

SERVICES, LTD, an Indian 

corporation; and TATA SONS, LTD,

an Indian corporation

 Defendant. 

_______________________________/

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED

NOVEMBER 30, 2006 AT 2:00 PM:

The court has reviewed the parties’ papers and does not

wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed therein. If the

parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs,

Case 4:06-cv-00963-CW Document 43 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 2
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

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 shall 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 address the following questions:

1. Both parties have made arguments relating to formation

and validity of the 1997 Service Agreement and September

24, 2000 letter. Neither party, however, has addressed

choice of law. Should the court apply federal common

law, Indian law, California law, international law or

some combination? What authorities support this choice?

2. Article II, section 2 of the United Nations Convention on

the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral

Awards (“Convention”) provides that an “‘agreement in

writing’ shall include an arbitral clause in a contract

or an arbitration agreement, signed by the parties or

contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams.” 

Should the court interpret “shall include” broadly as

“words of enlargement” as defendants argue?

3. Article II, section 3 of the Convention applies to “a

subject matter capable of settlement by arbitration.”

Plaintiff has asked for injunctive relief. Is injunctive

relief available in Indian arbitration against all three

defendants?

4. Defendants assert that they have changed their policy on

paying employee’s taxes. Do these policy changes moot

Vedachalam’s claims for injunctive relief?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 4:06-cv-00963-CW Document 43 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 2