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)

Download PDF
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

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?