C S BIO CO., et al. v. COMERICA BANK

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California continued the hearing on Comerica Bank's motion for summary judgment and requested supplemental briefing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f). The court explained that the central issue was whether plaintiffs could show damages caused by alleged misrepresentations concerning loan funding, payment of a contractor invoice, waiver of a financial covenant, and Intarcia's financial condition. The court cautioned that plaintiffs appeared to be relying primarily on benefit-of-the-bargain damages rather than damages caused by reliance on the alleged misrepresentations, and allowed supplemental briefing on causation and damages.

Holdings

1. The relevant damages inquiry is what damages plaintiffs suffered as a result of reasonable reliance on the alleged misrepresentations, false promises, failures to disclose, or concealments, not the position plaintiffs would have occupied if the loan had been approved and funded.
2. Before entering summary judgment on causation or damages grounds that were not fully presented in Comerica's motion, the court must provide plaintiffs notice and an opportunity to submit supplemental briefing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs identified a triable issue of fact establishing damages caused by their reasonable reliance on Comerica's alleged misrepresentations, false promises, failures to disclose, or concealments.
2. Whether plaintiffs' proposed damages measure improperly sought the financial benefits they allegedly would have received if the loan had been approved and funded.
3. Whether the court could consider causation and damages as grounds for summary judgment without additional notice and briefing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).

Disposition

other