Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Netgear, Inc. et al

Filing 112

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 99 Motion to Strike (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC., 7 Plaintiff, No. C 08-2310 PJH 8 v. 9 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE NETGEAR, INC., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Defendant. _______________________________/ 12 Defendant’s motion to strike counts three and four of plaintiff’s second amended 13 complaint came on for hearing before this court on May 22, 2013. Plaintiff Ruckus 14 Wireless, Inc. (“plaintiff”) appeared through its counsel, Colby Springer. Defendant 15 Netgear, Inc. (“defendant”) appeared through its counsel, Nina Wang and Mary Sooter. 16 Having read the papers filed in conjunction with the motion and carefully considered the 17 arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby 18 GRANTS defendant’s motion, for the reasons stated at the hearing and as follows. 19 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), plaintiff is required to obtain the 20 opposing party’s written consent or leave of court before amending its complaint. Plaintiff 21 admits that it did not obtain defendant’s written consent to file the second amended 22 complaint (“SAC”), but instead argues that the court’s instructions at the January 3, 2013 23 case management conference allowed it to add two new claims (for breach of contract and 24 trade secret misappropriation). Specifically, the court ordered plaintiff to file an amended 25 complaint in order to consolidate both of plaintiff’s patent infringement cases into a single 26 complaint. See Dkt. 95. The court also made clear that no new patents or accused 27 products were to be added to the complaint. Id. Plaintiff now argues that the court’s order 28 1 only placed limits on its ability to add new patents or accused products, and otherwise 2 granted blanket leave to add any number of new causes of action. Plaintiff’s interpretation 3 of the court’s order simply strains credulity. The court granted leave to amend only so that 4 plaintiff could consolidate its two complaints into a single complaint. The court was not 5 made aware that plaintiff intended to assert these two new causes of action, so it could not 6 have granted leave to add those claims. Thus, the SAC exceeds the scope of the court’s 7 order granting leave to amend, and the third and fourth causes of action are stricken. If 8 plaintiff wishes to amend its complaint to add those claims, it can either obtain defendant’s 9 written consent or file a motion for leave to amend its complaint. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 28, 2013 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?