MyMedicalRecords Inc v. Jardogs LLC

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO AMEND 27 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc). Modified on 11/1/2013 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

MYMEDICALRECORDS, INC.,

13
14
15

Case No. 2:13-cv-03560-ODW(SHx)

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO AMEND [27]

JARDOGS, LLC,
Defendant.

16
17

On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff MyMedicalRecords, Inc. filed a Complaint against

18

Defendant Jardogs, LLC. MyMedicalRecords owns, among others, U.S. Patent No.

19

8,301,466, which covers Plaintiff’s Internet-based, personal, medical-records system.

20

MyMedicalRecords alleges that Jardogs’s product FollowMyHealth Universal Health

21

Record infringes upon the

22

infringement claim against Jardogs based on Jardogs’s alleged infringement of the

23

466 patent. MyMedicalRecords only brought one patent-

466 patent.

24

On September 23, 2013, MyMedicalRecords filed suit against Allscripts

25

Healthcare Solutions, Inc. MyMedicalRecords alleges that Allscripts acquired all or

26

substantially all of Jardogs in March 2013, thus allegedly rendering Allscripts liable

27

for

28

MyMedicalRecords brought two claims against Allscripts: one for alleged

any

infringement

resulting

from

Jardogs’s

FollowMyHealth

product.

1

infringement of the

466 patent and one for alleged infringement of

2

MyMedicalRecords’s 8,498,883 patent involving the same Internet-based system.

3

The Court then ordered MyMedicalRecords to show cause why it had not added

4

Allscripts as a defendant in its suit against Jardogs. MyMedicalRecords subsequently

5

filed this Motion. Because both suits involve the same allegedly infringing product,

6

and Allscripts now ostensibly owns and uses the product that was once owned by

7

Jardogs, the Court GRANTS MyMedicalRecords’s Motion to Amend.

8

First, the Court notes that Allscripts did not oppose this Motion to Amend.

9

(ECF No. 27.) Under the Local Rules, a court may deem a party’s failure to file an

10

opposition as consent to the court granting the motion.

11

C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12.

Allscripts’s silence bespeaks its position on the Motion.

12

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a), Allscripts is a “necessary” party

13

and therefore “must be joined.” Rule 19(a) sets forth “necessary” parties, that is,

14

those parties who “must be joined” if they will not deprive the court of subject-matter

15

jurisdiction. A party is necessary if, among others, disposing of the action in that

16

party’s absence may “as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to

17

protect the interest; or . . . leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of

18

incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the

19

interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B). If a necessary party has not been joined, the

20

court “must order that the person be made a party.” Id. (a)(2).

21

As noted above, the Jardogs suit was filed nearly four months before the

22

Allscripts suit. There is a potential risk that adjudicating the Jardogs suit could leave

23

Allscripts open to “incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations.”

24

Fed R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B).

25

Allscripts each infringed the same patent through the same product, varied rulings in

26

two different cases would render Allscripts subject to “inconsistent obligations.” The

27

Court thus finds that Allscripts is a necessary party in the Jardogs action.

28

///

Since MyMedicalRecords alleges that Jardogs and

2

1

Further, under 35 U.S.C. § 299(a), a plaintiff may join multiple alleged

2

infringers in one action if plaintiff’s claims arise “out of the same transaction,

3

occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making, using,

4

importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the same accused

5

product or process” and “questions of fact common to all defendants or counterclaim

6

defendants will arise in the action.”

7

FollowMyHealth—the allegedly infringing product—is the “same accused

8

product” in both the Jardogs and Allscripts suits. MyMedicalRecord’s suits against

9

each Defendant go further. MyMedicalRecords alleges that Defendants infringed the

10

466 patent through the same product: FollowMyHealth. Issues such as the

466

11

patent’s validity and whether FollowMyHealth’s infringes the

12

common to both suits. The Court consequently finds that joinder of Allscripts is

13

proper under § 299.

14
15
16

466 patent are issues

The Court therefore GRANTS MyMedicalRecord’s Motion to Amend. (ECF
No. 27.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

November 1, 2013

19
20
21
22

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

3