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

Filing 917

MINUTE ORDER NOTING DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT SONUS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS re 906 Joint MOTION to Dismiss With Prejudice filed by Sonus Networks Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 23, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2014)

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.
9
10

CISCO SYSTEMS INC, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

MINUTE ORDER NOTING DISMISSAL
OF DEFENDANT SONUS, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, GRANTING MOTION
TO DISMISS
Re: ECF No. 906

12

In this multiple-defendant patent infringement action, Plaintiff EON Corp. IP Holdings,

13

LLC (“EON”) and Defendant Sonus Networks, Inc. (“Sonus”) have jointly moved the Court to

14

dismiss with prejudice all claims and counterclaims asserted by and between EON and Sonus in

15

this litigation. ECF No. 906.

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). Wilson involved unilateral dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) rather than stipulated

21

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), but the word “action” in Rule 41(a)(1) refers to “the entirety

22

of claims against any single defendant,” rather than to “the entire controversy against all the

23

defendants.” Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1993). At the time Pedrina was

24

decided, the words “in the action” appeared after the words “all parties who have appeared.” See

25

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41 (West 1993). In holding that “Rule 41(a) may be invoked to dismiss less than

26

all of the parties,” the Ninth Circuit has approvingly cited authority from other circuits applying

27

that rule to stipulated dismissals. Lake at Las Vegas Investors Grp., Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev.

28

Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 728 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191, 194 (5th

1
2

Cir. 1980)).
In the alternative, if dismissal was not effective upon court order, since no other parties

3

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

4

41(a)(2).

5

All claims between EON and Sonus have been DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The

6

Clerk shall terminate Sonus as a party to this action.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: January 23, 2014

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

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