Fernandez v. Adobe Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 28

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
DENNIS FERNANDEZ,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. C 11-04491 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

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

ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC.; CISCO
SYSTEMS, INC.; INTERCALL, INC.;
and BLACKBOARD, INC.,
Defendants.
/

This action was filed on September 9, 2011, and was reassigned to the undersigned judge

18

several weeks later. The complaint accuses four separate defendants of independent acts that

19

allegedly constitute infringement of plaintiff’s two patents. The four defendants are unrelated

20

companies that sell unrelated products. Significantly, they are not alleged to have acted in

21

concert to infringe plaintiff’s asserted patents. They share no common transaction or occurrence.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

should not be dismissed for misjoinder pursuant to FRCP 21. Plaintiff must file its response by

6

NOON ON OCTOBER 11, 2011. Defendants may file any replies by NOON ON OCTOBER 18, 2011.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: September 28, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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
2