SPECS USA Corp. v. SPECS Surface Nano Analysis GmbH et al

Filing 36

ORDER VACATING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; CONSOLIDATING CASES Amended Consolidated Complaint due by 8/5/2011. Joint Case Management Statement due by 8/19/2011. Case Management Conference set for 8/29/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge James Ware on 7/5/11. (sis, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
NO. C 10-04250 JW
NO. C 11-00393 JW

SPECS USA Corp.,

11

Plaintiff,
v.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
SPECS Surface Nano Analysis GmbH, et al.,

ORDER VACATING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE;
CONSOLIDATING CASES

13
Defendants.
14

/

15
SPECS Surface Nano Analysis GmbH, et al.,
16
Plaintiffs,
17
18

v.
Rickmer Kose, et al.,

19

Defendants.
/

20
These two related cases are scheduled for a Case Management Conference on July 11, 2011.

21
22

On July 1, 2011, the parties in both cases filed a Joint Case Management Statement.1 In the

23

Statement, SPECS USA Corp. and Rickmer Kose (who are Defendants in No. C 11-00393 JW)

24
25
26
27
1

28

JW.)

(See Docket Item No. 35 in No. C 10-04250 JW; Docket Item No. 20 in No. C 11-00393

1

contend that the related cases should be “treated as a consolidated action with a single calendar.”2

2

(Id. at 10-11.)

3

A district court has broad discretion to consolidate actions involving “common issues of law

4

or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); Investors Research Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877

5

F.2d 777, 777 (9th Cir. 1989). In exercising its broad discretion to order consolidation, a district

6

court “weighs the saving of time and effort consolidation would produce against any inconvenience,

7

delay, or expense that it would cause.” Huene v. U.S., 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984).

8

Here, upon review of the related cases, the Court finds that each case presents similar factual

German company, and SPECS USA, an American company which was authorized to sell SPECS

11
For the Northern District of California

and legal issues. Both cases involve disputed contractual agreements between SPECS GmbH, a

10

United States District Court

9

GmbH’s products to American customers. Further, the cases are both at similarly early stages of

12

litigation. Given these similarities and the lack of any apparent inconvenience, delay, or expense

13

that would result from consolidating the cases, the Court finds that consolidation of the cases is

14

appropriate.

15

Accordingly, the Court VACATES the July 11 Conference and orders as follows:

16

(1)

The Court consolidates the related cases No. C 10-04250 JW and No. C 11-

17

00393 JW into one action. The Clerk of Court shall consolidate these actions such

18

that the earliest filed action, No. C 10-04250 JW, is the lead case. All future filings

19

shall be in No. C 10-04250 JW and shall bear the caption: “In re SPECS.”

20

In the consolidated action, Plaintiffs shall be SPECS Surface Nano Analysis

21

GmbH and SPECS Surface Nano Analysis, Inc. and Defendants shall be SPECS USA

22

Corp. and Rickmer Kose. All pleadings filed in the consolidated action shall reflect

23

this realignment. See, e.g., Plumtree Software, Inc. v. Datamize, LLC, No. C 02-

24
2

27

The other parties in these related cases–SPECS GmbH and SPECS Nano–offer no
contention, in the Joint Case Management Statement, as to whether the cases should be consolidated.
However, on June 23, 2011, the Court informed all the parties in these related cases that it intended
to consolidate the cases at the July 11 Case Management Conference. (See Order Denying
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; Requiring Plaintiffs to Join SPECS USA as a Defendant at 5 n.7,
Docket Item No. 19 in No. C 11-00393 JW.)

28

2

25
26

1

5693 VRW, 2003 WL 25841157, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2003) (explaining that a

2

district court has discretion to realign the parties in a case “in accordance with the

3

primary purpose of the litigation”).

4

Since the later action is now consumed in the first filed action, the Clerk shall

5
6

administratively close No. C 11-00393 JW.
(2)

7
8
9

On or before August 5, 2011, Plaintiffs shall file an Amended Consolidated
Complaint.

(3)

The Court sets August 29, 2011 at 10 a.m. for a Case Management Conference in
this case. On or before August 19, 2011, the parties shall file a Joint Case
Management Statement including, inter alia, a good faith proposed schedule on how

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

this case should proceed.

12
13
14

Dated: July 5, 2011
JAMES WARE
United States District Chief Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

1

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

2

Garth Aaron Rosengren [e-mail]
James Harold Vorhis [e-mail]
Kenneth E. Keller [e-mail]
Michael David Lisi [e-mail]

3
4
5

Dated: July 5, 2011

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

6
By:
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/s/ JW Chambers
Susan Imbriani
Courtroom Deputy