Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al v. HomeLava Limited

Filing 14

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and Order continuing the case management conference signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. The case management conference is continued to 7/21/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom E, 15th Floor, San Francisco. (shyS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2015)

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

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

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, and RH US,
12 LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,
13
Plaintiffs,
14
vs.
15
HOMELAVA LIMITED, a foreign
16 company,
17

Civil Case No.: 3:15-cv-00926-EDL
The Honorable Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth D. Laporte
PLAINTIFFS RESTORATION
HARDWARE, INC. AND RH US,
LLC’S CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND _____________
[PROPOSED]
ORDER

Defendant.

18
19

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

20 hereby submit this Case Management Statement and Proposed Order pursuant to the
21 Court’s Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference (Doc. No. 5-1) and Civil
22 Local Rule 16-9.
23

1.

24

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

Jurisdiction and Service:

25 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 because this action involves claims for copyright
26 infringement arising under the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, 17 U.S.C. § 101,
27 et seq., and for patent infringement arising under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et
28 seq.
1

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00926-EDL

1

RH has been unable to effectuate service on Defendant. RH’s attempts to

2 communicate with Defendant informally have also failed.

RH has determined

3 Defendant does not have a U.S. address and is located in Hong Kong. RH is
4 exploring alternative means of service and will likely file a motion seeking
5 permission to effect alternative service. RH will address any deadlines in that
6 request.
7

2.

8

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

Facts:

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

9 holds design patents for its furniture designs and copyright registrations for
10 photographs of its renowned products.

Defendant sells knockoff RH products,

11 violating RH’s patents, and is using RH’s copyrighted photographs to advertise,
12 promote and sell those knockoffs. After several attempts to resolve this matter with
13 Defendant, to no avail, RH brought this action for damages and other appropriate
14 relief.
15

3.

Legal Issues:

16

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

17

 RH’s ownership of its copyrights;

18

 Whether Defendant has infringed the patents-in-suit;

19

 Whether Defendant has infringed RH’s copyrights; and

20

 The amount of damages Defendant should pay RH.

21

4.

22

No motions currently pending. RH expects to file a motion for alternative

Pending And Anticipated Motions:

23 service.
24

5.

25

None.

26

6.

27

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

Anticipated Pleading Amendments:

Evidence Preservation:

28 Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. Because Defendant has not been
2

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00926-EDL

1 served, there has not been a conference held regarding reasonable and proportionate
2 steps taken to preserve electronic evidence. However, RH confirms that it has taken
3 steps to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action.
4

7.

5

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

Disclosures:

6 26(f) conference and have not discussed a proposed discovery plan.
7

8.

8

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

Discovery:

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

9 26(f) conference and have not discussed a proposed discovery plan.
10

9.

11

Not applicable.

12

10.

13

RH has filed several enforcement actions in this district against other

Class Actions:

Related Cases:

14 infringers of RH’s intellectual property:
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;
3

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00926-EDL

1

 Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. PHX Lighting, LLC,

2
3

Case No. 3:15-cv-00918-EDL;
 Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Topson Lighting, Ltd.,

4
5

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

6
7

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

8 Sea Rattan Furniture, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00891-EDL, (Doc. 13) Magistrate

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

9 Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte determined that the following cases are related under
10 local Civil Rule 3-12:
11

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

12
13

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

14
15

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

16
17

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

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

See Civil L.R. 3–

26 12(a)(2)”).
27 ///
28 ///
4

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00926-EDL

1

11.

2

RH seeks both injunctive relief and damages under the Copyright Act and the

Relief:

3 Patent Act. If necessary, RH may opt for statutory damages under the Copyright
4 Act. 17 U.S.C. §504(c).
5

12.

6

RH has already attempted to resolve this case informally with Defendant

Settlement and ADR:

7 numerous times, without avail. Because Defendant has not been served, the parties
8 have not engaged in discussions regarding ADR.

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

9
10

13.

Consent to Magistrate For All Purposes:

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

11 purposes.
12

14.

13

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

Other References:

14 or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
15

15.

16

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

Narrowing of Issues:

17 narrowing the issues.
18

16.

19

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

Expedited Trial Procedure:

20 whether this case can be handled under the Expedited Trial Procedures.
21

17.

22

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

Scheduling:

23 discovery scheduling.
24

18.

25

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

Trial:

26 would require between 3 to 5 trial days.
27

19.

28

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

Disclosure of Non Party Interested Entities or Persons:
5

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00926-EDL

1 Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Restoration Hardware,
2 Inc. and RH US, LLC are each direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of
3 Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc., a publicly traded Delaware corporation.
4

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

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

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

9
10

20.

Professional Conduct:

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

11 for the Northern District of California.
12
13
14

21.

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

Because of the status of this case, RH requests that the Case Management

15 Conference be continued for sixty (60) days.
16

Respectfully submitted,

17
18 Dated: May 19, 2015

By:

/s/ Michael J. McCue
MICHAEL J. MCCUE
AARON D. JOHNSON
Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169-5996
[phone] (Tel.)
[phone] (Fax)

19
20
21
22

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.
RH US, LLC.

23
24
25
26
27
28
6

Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,
3:15-cv-00926-EDL

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

1
2

Based on the PLAINTIFFS RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC. AND

3 RH US, LLC’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED]
4 ORDER filed by Plaintiffs on May 19, 2015, the Court hereby continues the Case
July 21
5 Management Conference for this case for 60 days until _________________, 2015
10:00 am

_____
6 at am/pm. All related deadlines under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 25

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

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

9

IT IS SO ORDERED

10

Dated: May 21, 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-00926-EDL