Nazomi Communications Inc v. Samsung Telecommunications Inc et al

Filing 117

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE CLAIMS IN THIS MULTI-DEFENDANT ACTION SHOULD NOT BE SEVERED. Signed by Judge Alsup on September 28, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
NAZOMI COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C 10-05545 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

17

SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC, SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
HTC CORP., HTC AMERICA, INC.,
LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
U.S.A., INC., and KYOCERA
COMMUNICATIONS INC.,

18

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY THE CLAIMS IN THIS
MULTI-DEFENDANT ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE SEVERED

Defendants.

14
15
16

/

19
20

This action was filed in October 2010 and was reassigned to the undersigned judge in

21

September 2011. The operative complaint accuses four separate groups of corporate defendants

22

of independent acts that allegedly constitute infringement of plaintiff’s three patents. The four

23

defendant groups are unrelated corporate families that sell unrelated products. Significantly, they

24

are not alleged to have acted in concert to infringe plaintiff’s asserted patents. They share no

25

common transaction or occurrence.

26

As set forth in FRCP 20(a)(2), multiple defendants may be joined together in one action if

27

“(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect

28

to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences;

1

and (B) any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.” In

2

situations of misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties, FRCP 21 provides that “[o]n motion or on its

3

own, the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” The fact that separate parties

4

manufacture, sell, or operate similar products that may infringe identical patents is not necessarily

5

sufficient to join unrelated parties as defendants in the same lawsuit pursuant to Rule 20(a).

6

See WiAV Networks, LLC v. 3Com Corp., No. C 10-03448 WHA, 2010 WL 3895047

7

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2010).

8

Plaintiff is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why all but the first-named Samsung

9

defendants should not be dismissed for misjoinder pursuant to FRCP 21. Plaintiff must file its
response by NOON ON OCTOBER 11, 2011. Defendants may file any replies by NOON ON

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

OCTOBER 18, 2011.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: September 28, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2