Heller v. Cepia L.L.C. et.al.

Filing 71

ORDER (1) VACATING HEARING; (2) REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING; and (3) CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Statement due by 2/17/2012. Case Management Conference set for 2/24/2012 01:30 PM in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 12/5/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JASON G. HELLER,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,

No. C 11-01146 JSW

v.
CEPIA, L.L.C., et al.,
Defendants.

14

/

ORDER (1) VACATING
HEARING; (2) REQUESTING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING;
AND (3) CONTINUING CASE
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

15
16

The cross-motions for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and the

17

motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed by Defendant Cepia, L.L.C. (“Cepia”) are

18

fully briefed and ripe for decision. The Court finds these matters are suitable for disposition

19

without oral argument. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Accordingly, the hearing set for

20

December 9, 2011 on these motions is VACATED.

21

With respect to the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by

22

Defendants A-Tech Product Engineering Company, Limited (“A-Tech”) and The Bean Project

23

Company, Limited (“The Bean”), the Court finds that supplemental briefing would be

24

beneficial. In their reply brief, A-Tech and The Bean assert arguments for the first time in their

25

reply brief on the issue of whether the exercise of specific jurisdiction would be unreasonable.

26

In the interest of fairness, the Court is providing Plaintiff Jason G. Heller (“Heller”) an

27

opportunity to respond to these arguments. Moreover, the Court directs Heller to address the

28

following questions:

1

(1)

Heller asks for leave to conduct jurisdictional discovery, but does not specify

2

what information he seeks to meet his burden to demonstrate personal

3

jurisdiction. Heller states that he wants discovery “as to all disputed facts.”

4

Specifically, what facts does Heller contend are dispute which would, if true,

5

demonstrate jurisdiction over The Bean and over A-Tech?

6

(2)

Heller sets forth the information which led him to believe that A-Tech and The

also owned/recently created another company called “The Bean.” I was told that

9

Mr. Kwan formed The Bean to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest with

10

respect to work done for competing toy companies.” (Declaration of Jason G.

11
For the Northern District of California

Bean were the same entity. Heller states that “I was informed that ... Mr. Kwan

8

United States District Court

7

Heller in Opp. to Cepia’s Rule 11 Sanctions Mot., ¶ 3.) Heller further states that

12

during his tour of A-Tech’s facilities in Hong Kong, an unspecified person

13

“simply pointed to a work table and stated that this was ‘The Bean’ – a single

14

work table amidst a sea of A-Tech work tables. This is one of the reasons why I

15

see A-Tech and The Bean as the same entity.” (Id., ¶ 4.) Now, in light of the

16

evidence presented by A-Tech and The Bean, the initial information believed by

17

Heller appears to be insufficient to show that The Bean and A-Tech should be

18

treated as the same entity. In light of the evidence in the record, does Heller still

19

contend that A-Tech and The Bean should be treated as one entity? If so, on

20

what basis?

21

(3)

Heller states that Peter Yeung told him that his contacts had “confirmed that

22

Cepia had previous business dealings with A-Tech/The Bean.” (Id., ¶ 14.) Did

23

Mr. Yeung’s contacts state that Cepia had prior business dealings with A-Tech,

24

The Bean, or both?

25

By no later than noon on December 12, 2011, Heller shall file a brief no longer than eight pages

26

addressing these questions, as well as A-Tech and The Bean’s arguments regarding the

27

reasonableness of exercising jurisdiction over them. By no later than December 16, 2011, A-

28

Tech and The Bean may file a responsive brief no longer than eight pages. The Court HEREBY
2

1

VACATES the hearing on A-Tech and The Bean’s motion to dismiss and will reset it at a later

2

date, if necessary.

3
4
5

The Court FURTHER ORDERS that the case management conference is CONTINUED
to February 24, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: December 5, 2011
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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
3