Boston Global Construction Company v. Awrish Builders
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:22-cv-05855
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Boston Global Construction v. Faisal Rahim, Judge Rogers ordered briefs on whether a Ninth Circuit decision may resolve the parties’ summary-judgment dispute.
Boston Global Construction Company and Faisal Rahim, whose cross-motions for summary judgment remained undecided pending their responses to the court’s order.
What happened
Boston Global Construction Company brought a single claim under the Declaratory Judgment Act against Faisal Rahim. The parties had filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The court identified a Ninth Circuit decision, City of Reno v. Netflix, concerning when someone may use the Declaratory Judgment Act to seek relief without another legal claim. The court ordered both parties to explain why that decision should not control this case.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers required each party to file a brief by April 9, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. The court had not yet decided the summary-judgment motions and would later decide whether to keep the April 15 hearing on the calendar.
The detailed version
- Boston Global Construction Company v. Awrish Builders · No. 4:22-cv-05855
- Yvonne Rogers
- Apr. 4, 2025
Background
Boston Global Construction Company pursued a single cause of action under the Declaratory Judgment Act. The opinion identifies Faisal Rahim as the defendant. The parties had filed cross-motions for summary judgment, but the court had not ruled on those motions.
Issue Identified by the Court
The court relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in City of Reno v. Netflix, 52 F.4th 874 (9th Cir. 2022). According to the opinion, that decision held that a potential plaintiff may not use the Declaratory Judgment Act to obtain affirmative relief when no separate cause of action exists. It also stated that a potential defendant may seek a declaration that a potential plaintiff’s claim would fail.
The court ordered the parties to show cause—that is, to explain—why the Ninth Circuit’s decision should not dispose of this case.
Order
The court ordered each party to file a written brief addressing the issue by Wednesday, April 9, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. Each brief could not exceed four pages. After reviewing the briefs, the court would decide whether to keep the April 15, 2025 hearing on the parties’ summary-judgment motions on the calendar.
This order did not grant or deny either summary-judgment motion and did not decide the underlying claim.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.