Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al

Filing 46

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez:, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: IMPROPER JOINDER by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez.....Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing no later than January 10, 2014 why the Court should not dismiss withou t prejudice all but the first named Defendant, Amazon.com, Inc., on the grounds of improper joinder of parties. Failure to respond by the above date will result in the Court dismissing this action. (PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS) RE: ( Response to Order to Show Cause due by 1/10/2014.) (lw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

December 3, 2013

Case No.

CV 13-8369 PSG (PLAx)

Title

Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

Present:

The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
Wendy Hernandez
Deputy Clerk

Not Reported
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers): Order to Show Cause Re: Improper Joinder

Plaintiff Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against
Defendants Amazon.com, Inc.; Best Buy Co., Inc.; Costco Wholesale Corp.; Overstock.com,
Inc.; Radioshack Corp.; Sears, Roebuck, and Co.; Target Corp.; and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. See
Dkt. # 1. Defendants are alleged to have “made, had made, installed, used, imported, provided,
supplied, distributed, sold, and/or offered for sale products and/or systems . . . that infringed, or
when used, infringed one more claims of” Plaintiff’s ‘158 or ‘160 patent relating to parental
control features contained in DVD players and televisions. Compl. ¶¶ 16-20, 25-33.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a) provides the circumstances under which
Defendants may be joined, stating:
“Persons . . . may be joined in one action as defendants if:
(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally,
or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences;
and
(B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will
arise in the action.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). Although Plaintiff conclusorily alleges that Defendants’ conduct was
part of the same transaction or occurrence, there is no indication that Defendants acted in
concert, or that Defendants’ conduct was connected in any way. See id. ¶¶ 35-39; see also
Tataryan v. Chase Bank, No. CV 12-08788 DDP (FMOx), 2013 WL 424778, at *4 (C.D. Cal.
Feb. 1, 2013); Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Agfaphoto Holding GmbH, No.8:12 CV
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

December 3, 2013

Case No.

CV 13-8369 PSG (PLAx)

Title

Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

1153 ODW (MRWx), 2012 WL 4513805, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 2012).
If the Court determines that parties are misjoined, the Court may, at any time, add or drop
a party, or sever any claim against a party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Where defendants have been
misjoined, the Court may generally dismiss without prejudice all but the first named defendant.
See Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997) (“If the test for permissive joinder
is not satisfied . . . the court can generally dismiss all but the first named plaintiff without
prejudice.”); Townsend v. Nat’l Arbitration Forum, No. CV 09-9325-VBK (RNBx), 2012 WL
12736, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012) (citing to Coughlin for the proposition that the court may
dismiss without prejudice all but the first named defendant if the test for permissive joinder of
defendants is not satisfied). Accordingly, the Court orders Plaintiff to show cause in writing no
later than January 10, 2014 why the Court should not dismiss without prejudice all but the first
named Defendant, Amazon.com, Inc., on the grounds of improper joinder of parties. Failure to
respond by the above date will result in the Court dismissing this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2