Fitbit, Inc. v. Laguna 2, LLC et al

Filing 145

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen denying 139 Defendants' Motion to Shorten Time; and rescheduling hearings on Defendants' Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Summary Judgment. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Plaintiff,

8
9
10

v.
LAGUNA 2, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME; AND
RESCHEDULING HEARINGS ON
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO MODIFY
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Docket No. 139

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Case No. 17-cv-00079-EMC

FITBIT, INC.,

13
14

In February 2017, the Court granted Fitbit’s motion for a preliminary injunction as to the

15

L2 Defendants. See Docket No. 52 (order). At the time of the order, the Fitbit had added the Cali

16

Defendants as named defendants, see Docket No. 36 (first amended complaint), but the Cali

17

Defendants had not yet made an appearance, and Fitbit had not yet moved for temporary or

18

preliminary injunctive relief with respect to the Cali Defendants. The Court thus ordered Fitbit to

19

file a motion with respect to the Cali Defendants to the extent Fitbit sought similar temporary or

20

preliminary injunctive relief. See Docket No. 52 (Order at 5).

21

Shortly after the Court’s order, Fitbit and the Cali Defendants reached a stipulation under

22

which the preliminary injunction entered as to the L2 Defendants would likewise apply to the Cali

23

Defendants. The Court signed the parties’ stipulation on March 1, 2017. See Docket No. 56

24

(stipulation and order).

25

Now, almost nine months later, the Cali Defendants – along with Great Value – have

26

moved for a modification of the preliminary injunction. See Docket No. 137 (motion). The Cali

27

Defendants and Great Value ask for the modification motion to be heard on shortened time – more

28

specifically, to be heard on December 14, 2017, the same date on which the Court will hear

1

Fitbit’s motion to strike or dismiss the L2 Defendants and the Cali Defendants’ counterclaims and

2

certain affirmative defenses. The Cali Defendants and Great Value argue that it would be

3

convenient to have the modification motion heard on December 14 given that the parties will

4

already be appearing before the Court on Fitbit’s motion to dismiss or strike. Implicitly

5

recognizing that convenience is hardly dispositive, the Cali Defendants and Great Value also argue

6

that the modification motion should be heard on December 14 so that they can sell some of the

7

Fitbit products in their possession “prior to the end of the Christmas season.” Mot. at 1.

8

The motion to shorten time is DENIED. As noted above, convenience may be a

the extent the Cali Defendants and Great Value request shortened time because of the Christmas

11

season, the Court still is not persuaded. If the Cali Defendants and Great Value were truly

12
For the Northern District of California

consideration for the Court in evaluating a motion to shorten time, but it is hardly dispositive. To

10

United States District Court

9

concerned about the Christmas season, then they would have moved to modify the preliminary

13

injunction well in advance of Christmas – e.g., in October. The preliminary injunction has been in

14

place since March 1, 2017. The Cali Defendants and Great Value fail to explain why they waited

15

until the eleventh hour, so to speak, to seek relief.

16

Accordingly, the motion to shorten time is denied.

17

In addition, in light of the fact that the Cali Defendants and Great Value have now filed a

18

motion for summary judgment, the Court now consolidates the hearings on the modification

19

motion and the summary judgment motion. Both motions shall be heard on January 10, 2018,

20

at 9:30 a.m. The briefing schedules for the motions shall remain the same.

21

This order disposes of Docket No. 139.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25
26

Dated: November 22, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

27
28

2