BJB ELECTRIC LP v. BRIDGELUX, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BJB ELECTRIC LP,

Case No. 22-cv-01886-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER REGARDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF PAROL

BRIDGELUX, INC., EVIDENCE

13 Defendant.

Supplemental briefing regarding what parol evidence rules govern in this contract dispute reveals—it turns out—substantial agreement between the parties. BJB Electric LP and Bridgelux, Inc. agree course of dealing, usage of trade, and course of performance evidence is admissible to explain or supplement the terms of the Letter Agreement. Further, the parties agree “evidence of the circumstances under which the agreement was made or to which it relates” is admissible. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1856(g). The parties’ remaining disagreement appears to revolve around Bridgelux’s arguments that certain pieces of BJB Electric’s proffered evidence impermissibly contradict the terms of the Letter Agreement (and are inadmissible for that reason) or otherwise …