Yufa v. Particle Measuring Systems, Inc.

Filing 58

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 55 Motion to Dismiss (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

ALEKSANDR L. YUFA,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9

v.

No. C 09-1388 PJH
ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS

PARTICLE MEASURING SYSTEMS,
INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Defendant.
_______________________________/

12

Before the court is defendant Particle System Inc.’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim

13

for emotional distress. In his second amended complaint (“SAC”), plaintiff alleges only that

14

defendant has caused him emotional distress by its “misrepresentation of the plaintiff’s

15

achievements as defendants’ achievements.”

16

Defendant first argues that “there is no federal claim for emotional distress arising

17

under patent law,” but plaintiff does not purport to be proceeding under federal law, and the

18

court instead construes plaintiff’s asserted claim as arising under state law. In order to

19

state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, plaintiff must allege (1) extreme

20

and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless

21

disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe

22

or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional

23

distress by defendant’s outrageous conduct. Christensen v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.3d 868,

24

903 (1991). Plaintiff’s allegations, as pled in the SAC, are not sufficient to state a claim for

25

intentional infliction of emotional distress, and thus, defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

26

Although it is unlikely that plaintiff will be able to cure the deficiencies of his claim through

27

amendment, the court will allow plaintiff one opportunity to amend this claim. Plaintiff shall

28

have until September 3, 2013 to file an amended complaint in accordance with this order,

1

and defendant shall have 21 days from that filing to answer or otherwise respond to the

2

complaint. No new claims or parties may be added - only the emotional distress claim may

3

be re-pled. Plaintiff’s amended complaint must also make clear whether he intends to

4

assert one or two infringement claims.

5

Finally, the court will conduct a case management conference in this matter on

6

September 19, 2013 at 2:00pm. The court notes this case management conference will

7

be held before defendant’s response to plaintiff’s amended complaint is due. However, the

8

parties must still comply with this court’s filing requirements for case management

9

conferences.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 1, 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