Bell Atlantic Business Systems Services v. Hitachi Data Systems Corp.

Good Law
849 F. Supp. 702·94 Daily Journal DAR 6711·1994 WL 148099·1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5302
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 29, 1994C 93-20079 JWCalifornia2,438 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ware, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants Hitachi America Ltd. (“Hitachi America”) and Hitachi, Ltd. (“Hitachi”) move to dismiss Plaintiffs, Bell Atlantic Business Systems Services (“Bell Atlantic”), First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) pursuant to Federal Rule, of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant Hitachi Data Systems (“Hitachi Data”) moves for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(c) on Count I of the Complaint, which alleges conspiracy under § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1 .

Courts generally may not consider matters outside the pleadings to decide a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). If parties present matters outside the pleadings, and the court is willing to consider those matters, the court should convert the motion to a motion for summary judgment. Bonilla v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 697 F.2d 1297 (9th Cir.1982). Similarly, the above standard applies to motions for judgment on the pleadings. Slevin v. Pedersen Assoc., Inc., 540 F.Supp. 437 (S.D.N.Y.1982). The parties before the Court have gone beyond the “four corners” of the pleadings…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.