Conru

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 ANDREW CONRU, Case No. 23-cv-04056-BLF

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

9 v. DISMISS

10 JONATHAN B. BUCKHEIT, [Re: ECF No. 15] 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff Andrew Conru brings this action alleging Defendant Jonathan Buckheit breached 14 a Call Option Agreement (“COA”) entered into by the parties in 2021 when Defendant refused 15 Plaintiff’s attempt to execute the option two years later. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 29–30. 16 Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the option lapsed because “Plaintiff failed 17 to timely deliver the expressly required specific consideration” required by the COA. ECF No. 15 18 (“Mot.”) at 2; ECF No. 21 (“Reply”). Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that the COA is 19 irrevocable because it was based on consideration, that it was otherwise irrevocable during a 20 vesting period defined in the COA, and that a waiver provision in the COA prevents the…