Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al v. Go Home Ltd.
Filing
17
ORDER GRANTING re 16 Case Management Statement/Request for Continuance filed by RH US, LLC, Restoration Hardware, Inc. Case Management Statement due by 2/12/2016. Case Management Conference previously set for 12/4/15 at 2:00 PM has been re-set for 2/19/2016 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 11/17/15. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2015)
1 MICHAEL J. MCCUE (SBN: 296425)
Email: MMcCue@LRRLaw.com
2 AARON D. JOHNSON (SBN: 261747)
Email: ADJohnson@LRRLAW.com
3 Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP
4300 Bohannon Drive
4 Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 391-1380 (Tel.)
5 (702) 391-1395 (Fax)
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.
7 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
GO HOME LTD., a Georgia corporation,
17
Defendant.
18
Civil Case No.: 3:15-cv-03960-JSC
The Honorable Magistrate Judge
Joseph C. Spero
PLAINTIFFS RESTORATION
HARDWARE, INC. AND RH US,
LLC’S CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER
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 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines
23 (Doc. No. 4) and Civil Local Rule 16-9.
24
1.
Jurisdiction and Service:
25
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
26 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 1367 because this action involves claims for patent
27 infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq, and related state law claims.
28
After Defendant was notified of this matter, Defendant expressed an interest
1
Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement
3:15-cv-03960-JSC
1 in settlement. The parties have made substantial progress in settlement terms but
2 require have not finalized those terms. To facilitate settlement and conserve costs,
3 Defendant has not been formally served.
4
2.
5
RH is an innovative and popular luxury brand for home furnishings. RH
Facts:
6 holds design patents for its furniture designs. RH alleges that Defendant continues
7 to sell products that violate RH’s patents, and breached the terms of the Settlement
8 Agreement. RH brought this action for damages and other appropriate relief.
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996
9
3.
Legal Issues:
10
RH’s ownership of the patents-in-suit;
11
Whether Defendant has infringed the patents-in-suit;
12
Whether Defendant breached the Settlement Agreement; and
13
The amount of damages Defendant should pay RH.
14
4.
15
None.
16
5.
17
None.
18
6.
19
RH’s counsel certifies that it has reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the
Pending And Anticipated Motions:
Anticipated Pleading Amendments:
Evidence Preservation:
20 Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. Because Defendant has not been
21 served, there has not been a conference held regarding reasonable and proportionate
22 steps taken to preserve electronic evidence. However, RH confirms that it has taken
23 steps to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action.
24
7.
25
Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not conducted a Rule
Disclosures:
26 26(f) conference and have not discussed a proposed discovery plan.
27 ///
28 ///
2
Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement
3:15-cv-03960-JSC
1
8.
2
Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not conducted a Rule
Discovery:
3 26(f) conference and have not discussed a proposed discovery plan.
9.
5
Not applicable.
6
10.
7
Not applicable.
8
11.
9
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996
4
RH seeks both injunctive relief and damages under the Patent Act, and
Class Actions:
Related Cases:
Relief:
10 damages as a result of the breach of contract.
11
12.
12
The parties are engaged in informal settlement discussions.
13
13.
14
RH has consented to the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case for all
Settlement and ADR:
Consent to Magistrate For All Purposes:
15 purposes.
16
14.
17
This case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special master,
Other References:
18 or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
19
15.
20
Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not discussed
Narrowing of Issues:
21 narrowing the issues.
22
16.
23
Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not discussed
Expedited Trial Procedure:
24 whether this case can be handled under the Expedited Trial Procedures.
25
17.
26
Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not discussed
Scheduling:
27 discovery scheduling.
28 ///
3
Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement
3:15-cv-03960-JSC
1
18.
2
RH did not demand a jury trial. RH preliminarily estimates that a bench trial
Trial:
3 would require between 3 to 5 trial days.
4
19.
5
RH has filed its certification of interested entities or persons. Pursuant to
Disclosure of Non Party Interested Entities or Persons:
6 Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Restoration Hardware,
7 Inc. and RH US, LLC are each direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of
8 Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc., a publicly traded Delaware corporation.
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996
9
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15, the undersigned certifies that, as of this
10 date, other than the named parties, there are no entities or persons who have a
11 financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding,
12 or any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of
13 the proceeding.
14
20.
15
RH’s counsel of record has reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct
Professional Conduct:
16 for the Northern District of California.
17
18
19
21.
Other Matters That Would Facilitate a Just, Speedy and
Inexpensive Disposition of this Matter:
Because of the pending settlement discussions, RH requests that the Case
20 Management Conference be continued for sixty (60) days.
21
Respectfully submitted,
22
23 Dated: November 16, 2015
By:
24
25
26
27
28
4
/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
(702) 949-8200 (Tel.)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.
RH US, LLC
Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement
3:15-cv-03960-JSC
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 November 16, 2015, the Court hereby continues the
Feb. 19, 2016
5 Case Management Conference for this case for 60 days until _________________,
2:00
6 2015 at ______ am/pm. All related deadlines under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
7 16 and 25 and applicable case management and discovery local rules and standing
8 orders shall be continued to accord with the new conference date.
IT IS SO ORDERED
UNIT
ED
11
R NIA
FO
H
ER
LI
RT
13
By: ____________________________________
The HonorablehMagistrate Judge
Spero
sep C.
Ju ge Jo
Joseph C. dSpero
14
15
A
12
ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T
RT
U
O
Dated: 11/17/15
S
10
Updated case management conference statement due 2/12/16.
NO
3993 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996
9
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement
3:15-cv-03960-JSC
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?