Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al v. South Sea Rattan Furniture, Inc.

Filing 25

ORDER continuing the case management conference to 9/15/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, San Francisco signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/26/2015)

1 MICHAEL J. MCCUE (SBN: 296425)
Email: [e-mail]
2 AARON D. JOHNSON (SBN: 261747)
Email: [e-mail]
3 Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP
4300 Bohannon Drive, Suite 230
4 Menlo Park, CA 94025
[phone] (Tel.)
5 [phone] (Fax)
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.
7 and RH US, LLC
8

3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12 RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, and RH US,
13 LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,
14
Plaintiffs,
15
vs.
16
SOUTH SEA RATTAN FURNITURE,
17 INC., a North Carolina corporation,
18

Civil Case No.: 3:15-cv-00891-EDL
The Honorable Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth D. Laporte
PLAINTIFFS RESTORATION
HARDWARE, INC. AND RH US,
LLC’S CASE MANAGEMENT
_____________
STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER

Defendant.

19
20

Plaintiffs Restoration Hardware, Inc. and RH US, LLC (collectively, “RH”)

21 hereby submit this Case Management Statement and Proposed Order pursuant to the
22 Court’s Case Management Order (Doc. No. 19) and Civil Local Rule 16-9.
23

1.

Jurisdiction and Service:

24

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

25 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 because this action involves claims for patent
26 infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
27

After Defendant was notified of this suit, RH and Defendant agreed to the

28 basic terms of settlement. A standard settlement agreement was drafted, which
1

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00891-EDL

1 Defendant reviewed and indicated they had no major problems with. Since July 30,
2 2015, RH has been awaiting return of the executed settlement agreement from
3 Defendant. However, each week, Defendant promised to respond to RH but has not
4 done so. The last communication RH had with Defendant was on August 13, at
5 which time Defendant promised to get back to RH the following week.
6

To date, RH has received no response. RH has been requesting extensions

7 of the case management conference in hopes of resolving this matter amicably. In
8 light of the recent events, RH believes settlement discussions have stalled.

3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

9 Accordingly, RH has arranged for service of process and intends to proceed with
10 litigation.
11

2.

12

RH is an innovative and popular luxury brand for home furnishings. RH

Facts:

13 holds design patents for its furniture designs. RH alleges that Defendant sells
14 products that violate RH’s patents. RH brought this action for damages and other
15 appropriate relief.
16

3.

Legal Issues:

17

• RH’s ownership of the patents-in-suit;

18

• Whether Defendant has infringed the patents-in-suit; and

19

• The amount of damages Defendant should pay RH.

20

4.

21

None.

22

5.

23

None.

24

6.

25

RH’s counsel certifies that it has reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the

Pending And Anticipated Motions:

Anticipated Pleading Amendments:

Evidence Preservation:

26 Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. Because Defendant has not been
27 served, there has not been a conference held regarding reasonable and proportionate
28 steps taken to preserve electronic evidence. However, RH confirms that it has taken
2

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00891-EDL

1 steps to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action.
2

7.

3

Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not conducted a Rule

Disclosures:

4 26(f) conference and have not discussed a proposed discovery plan.
5

8.

6

Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not conducted a Rule

Discovery:

7 26(f) conference and have not discussed a proposed discovery plan.
9.

9
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

8

Not applicable.

Class Actions:

10

10.

11

RH has filed several enforcement actions in this district against other

Related Cases:

12 infringers of RH’s intellectual property:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

• Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. South Sea Rattan Furniture, Inc.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00891-EDL;
• Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Stanislaus Funding, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:15-00892-EDL;
• Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Chicago Wicker & Trading Co.,
Case No. 3:15-00894-EDL;
• Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. Heng Zhong,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00937-KAW;
• Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. HFONC, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00954-DMR;
• Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. Light in the Box Ltd.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00924-KAW;
• Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. Patio Shoppers, Inc.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00936-DMR;
• Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. PHX Lighting, LLC,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00918-EDL;
3

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00891-EDL

• Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Topson Lighting, Ltd.,

1
2

Case No. 5:15-cv-00938-HRL; and
• Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. HomeLava Ltd.,

3
4
5

Case No. 3:15-cv-00926-EDL.
In an order dated May 12, 2015, in Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. South

6 Sea Rattan Furniture, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00891-EDL, (Doc. 13) Magistrate
7 Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte determined that the following cases are related under
8 local Civil Rule 3-12:
• Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. South Sea Rattan Furniture, Inc.,

3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

9
10

Case No. 3:15-cv-00891-EDL;
• Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Stanislaus Funding, Inc. et al.,

11
12

Case No. 3:15-00892-EDL; and
• Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Chicago Wicker & Trading Co.,

13
14
15

Case No. 3:15-00894-EDL.
Each of these cases have been assigned to Magistrate Judge Laporte. With

16 respect to the other cases, while RH does not believe they are related cases under
17 Civil Local Rule 3-12 because they involve different defendants selling different
18 products, RH does not oppose assignment to a single judge. See, e.g., EIT Holdings
19 LLC v. Yelp!, Inc., No. C 10–05623 WHA, 2011 WL 2192820, 2 (N.D. Cal. May 12,
20 2011) (“Given the disparity in defendants, websites, and other disparate issues
21 discussed herein like damages, willfulness, and discovery supervision, it is worth
22 adding that the allegations against each defendant would not be related under our
23 civil local rules even if brought here as separate actions.

See Civil L.R. 3–

24 12(a)(2)”).
25

11.

26

RH seeks both injunctive relief and damages under the Patent Act.

27

12.

28

The parties were engaging in settlement discussions but those discussions

Relief:

Settlement and ADR:
4

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00891-EDL

1 have stalled.
2

13.

3

RH has consented to the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case for all

Consent to Magistrate For All Purposes:

4 purposes.
5

14.

6

This case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special master,

Other References:

7 or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
15.

9
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

8

Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not discussed

Narrowing of Issues:

10 narrowing the issues.
11

16.

12

Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not discussed

Expedited Trial Procedure:

13 whether this case can be handled under the Expedited Trial Procedures.
14

17.

15

Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not discussed

Scheduling:

16 discovery scheduling.
17

18.

18

RH did not demand a jury trial. RH preliminarily estimates that a bench trial

Trial:

19 would require between 3 to 5 trial days.
20

19.

21

RH has filed its certification of interested entities or persons. Pursuant to

Disclosure of Non Party Interested Entities or Persons:

22 Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Restoration Hardware,
23 Inc. and RH US, LLC are each direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of
24 Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc., a publicly traded Delaware corporation.
25

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15, the undersigned certifies that, as of this

26 date, other than the named parties, there are no entities or persons who have a
27 financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding,
28 or any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of
5

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00891-EDL

1 the proceeding.
2

20.

3

RH’s counsel of record has reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct

Professional Conduct:

4 for the Northern District of California.
5
6
7

21.

Other Matters That Would Facilitate a Just, Speedy and
Inexpensive Disposition of this Matter:

RH has arranged for service of process but as of this date, service has not been

8 complete. In light of this, RH requests that the Case Management Conference be

3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

9 continued for fourteen (14) days. Once RH completes service, its counsel will
10 arrange the necessary conferences with opposing counsel, discuss the relevant
11 matters required under Rule 26 and local rules.
12
13

Respectfully submitted,

14
15 Dated: August 25, 2015

By:

16
17
18
19

/s/ Aaron D. Johnson
MICHAEL J. MCCUE
AARON D. JOHNSON
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP
4300 Bohannon Drive, Suite 230
Menlo Park, CA 94025
[phone] (Tel.)
[phone] (Fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.
and RH US, LLC.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00891-EDL

1
2

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Based on the PLAINTIFFS RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC. AND

3 RH US, LLC’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED]
4 ORDER filed by Plaintiffs on August 25, 2015, the Court hereby continues the Case
5 Management Conference for this case for 14 days until _________________, 2015
September 15
___
6 at ______ am/pm. All related deadlines under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16
10:00

7 and 26 and applicable case management and discovery local rules and standing
8 orders shall be continued to accord with the new conference date.

3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated: August 26, 2015

11
12
13

By: ____________________________________
The Honorable Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth D. Laporte

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00891-EDL