EON Corp IP Holdings LLC v. Sensus USA Inc et al

Filing 905

MINUTE ORDER NOTING DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS BROADSOFT, MERU NETWORKS, ARUBA NETWORKS AND SERCOMM, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, GRANTING JOINT MOTIONS TO DISMISS re 861 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Meru Networks, Inc. with Prejudice filed by EON Corp I P Holdings LLC; 878 Joint MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice as to Aruba Networks, Inc. filed by EON Corp IP Holdings LLC; 886 Joint MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice as to SerComm Corporation filed by EON Corp IP Holdings LLC; 830 Joint MOTION to Dismiss BroadSoft, Inc. With Prejudice filed by EON Corp IP Holdings LLC. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 20, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/24/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EON CORP IP HOLDINGS LLC,

Case No. 12-cv-01011-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.

11

MINUTE ORDER NOTING DISMISSAL
OF DEFENDANTS BROADSOFT,
MERU NETWORKS, ARUBA
NETWORKS AND SERCOMM, OR, IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, GRANTING
JOINT MOTIONS TO DISMISS

12

Re: ECF No. 830, 861, 878, 886

9
10

ARUBA NETWORKS INC, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.

13

In this multiple-defendant action, Plaintiff EON Corp IP Holdings LLC (“Plaintiff”) has

14

filed motions jointly with some (but not all) of the defendants in this case, seeking dismissal of all

15

claims and counterclaims between the jointly moving parties. ECF Nos. 830, 861, 878, 886.

16

There is authority indicating that the dismissals were effective without Court order. “The

17

plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants . . . through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice,” and “[t]he

18

filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the

19

defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th

20

Cir. 1997). While Wilson and other cases involved unilateral dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)

21

rather than stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Ninth Circuit has held that the word

22

“action” in 41(a)(1) refers to “the entirety of claims against any single defendant,” rather than to

23

“the entire controversy against all the defendants.” Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir.

24

1993). At the time Pedrina was decided, the words “in the action” appeared after the words “all

25

parties who have appeared.” See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41 (West 1993).

26

In the alternative, if dismissal was not effective upon court order, since no other parties

27

oppose the motions, the Court hereby GRANTS the joint motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule

28

41(a)(2).

1
2
3
4
5
6

Defendants BroadSoft, Meru, Aruba and SerComm have been DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall terminate these defendants as parties to this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2