City Solutions, Inc. v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

Good Law
201 F. Supp. 2d 1035·2001 WL 1854597·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27859
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 11, 2002C 99-00060 WHACalifornia5,573 words

Opinion

Opinion

Alsup, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court in this contract dispute is defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs third and fifth causes of action. Plaintiff, along with its opposition, has requested that the defendants be sanctioned for filing a repetitive motion. This order GRANTS defendant’s motion and DENIES plaintiffs motion.

STATEMENT

This case involves an alleged agreement or agreements concerning a bid on modular newsracks in San Francisco. Both plaintiff and defendants have already moved once for summary judgment; both motions were denied. Defendants have filed another motion, claiming it is justified by new evidence and new legal arguments. In their second motion, defendants ask for summary judgment on plaintiffs third cause of action, in which plaintiff CSI now alleges that defendant Eller Media breached two distinct oral joint venture agreements relating to the bid; and plaintiffs fifth cause of action, which alleges that defendants Adshel . and Clear Channel Communications interfered with these agreements. The relevant facts, set forth in much greater…

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.