U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc. et al

Filing 851


Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 U.S. ETHERNET INNOVATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 v. ACER, INC.; ACER AMERICA CORPORATION; APPLE, INC.; ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL; ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC.; DELL, INC.; FUJITSU, LTD.; FUJITSU AMERICA, INC.; GATEWAY, INC.; HEWLETT PACKARD CO.; SONY CORPORATION; SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA; SONY ELECTRONICS INC.; TOSHIBA CORPORATION; TOSHIBA AMERICA, INC.; and TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., No. C 10-3724 CW ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ASSERT CLAIMS AGAINST THIRD PARTY DEFENDANTS SILICON INTEGRATED SYSTEMS, INC. AND ORACLE CORPORATION (Docket No. 754) AND GRANTING SILICON INTEGRATED SYSTEMS CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND QUASH (Docket No. 731) Defendants, INTEL CORPORATION; NVIDIA CORPORATION; MARVELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; ATHEROS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and BROADCOM CORPORATION, 17 Intervenors. 18 ________________________________/ 19 Plaintiff U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC (USEI) moves for 20 leave to assert claims alleging infringement of United States 21 Patent Nos. 5,307,459, 5,434,872, 5,732,094, and 5,299,313 against 22 Third Party Defendants Silicon Integrated Systems Corporation 23 (SiS) and Oracle Corporation. Oracle opposes the motion. SiS has 24 not filed a response to the motion. Silicon Integrated Systems 25 Corporation (Taiwan) (SIS-TW) moves to dismiss the third party 26 complaint filed against it by Third-Party Plaintiffs ASUSTek 27 28 1 Computer Inc. (ASUSTek) and ASUS Computer International (ACI). 2 ASUSTek and ACI oppose SiS-TW’s motion. 3 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES USEI’s 4 motion and GRANTS SiS-TW’s motion. 5 I. 6 7 SiS-TW’s motion to dismiss A. Personal jurisdiction Under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 8 a defendant may move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 9 The plaintiff then bears the burden of demonstrating that the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 court has jurisdiction. 11 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). 12 plaintiff “need only demonstrate facts that if true would support 13 jurisdiction over the defendant.” 14 1495, 1498 (9th Cir. 1995). 15 complaint must be taken as true. 16 Lambert, 94 F.3d 586, 588 (9th Cir. 1996). 17 not assume the truth of such allegations if they are contradicted 18 by affidavit. 19 Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1977). 20 submits admissible evidence, conflicts in the evidence must be 21 resolved in the plaintiff’s favor. 22 Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., To satisfy this burden, the Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d Uncontroverted allegations in the AT&T v. Compagnie Bruxelles However, the court may Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Assocs., If the plaintiff also AT&T, 94 F.3d at 588. There are two independent limitations on a court’s power to 23 exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant: the 24 applicable state personal jurisdiction rule and constitutional 25 principles of due process. 26 (9th Cir. 1990); Data Disc, Inc., 557 F.2d at 1286. 27 California’s jurisdictional statute is co-extensive with federal 28 due process requirements, jurisdictional inquiries under state law Sher v. Johnson, 911 F.2d 1357, 1361 2 Because 1 and federal due process standards merge into one analysis. 2 v. Sipa Press, Inc., 987 F.2d 580, 587 (9th Cir. 1993). 3 Rano The exercise of jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant 4 violates the protections created by the due process clause unless 5 the defendant has sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum 6 state that the exercise of jurisdiction “does not offend 7 traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” 8 Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). 9 Int’l Personal jurisdiction may be either general or specific. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 ASUSTek and ACI assert that both exist here. 11 exists when the defendant maintains significant contacts with the 12 forum state, even if the cause of action is unrelated to those 13 contacts. 14 U.S. 408, 414 (1984). 15 when the cause of action arises out of the defendant’s contacts 16 with the forum state, even if those contacts are isolated and 17 sporadic. 18 19 General jurisdiction Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 Specific jurisdiction, in contrast, exists Data Disc, 557 F.2d at 1287. 1. General jurisdiction “‘A court may assert general jurisdiction over foreign 20 (sister-state or foreign-country) corporations to hear any and all 21 claims against them when their affiliations with the State are so 22 “continuous and systematic” as to render them essentially at home 23 in the forum State.’” 24 647 F.3d 1218, 1223-1224 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop 25 Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011)). 26 “For general jurisdiction to exist, a defendant must engage in 27 ‘continuous and systematic general business contacts’ . . . that 28 ‘approximate physical presence’ in the forum state . . . .” Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc., 3 Id. at 1223-24 (internal citations omitted). 2 “exacting” one and “is met only by ‘continuous corporate 3 operations within a state [that are] thought so substantial and of 4 such a nature as to justify suit against [the defendant] on causes 5 of action arising from dealings entirely distinct from those 6 activities.’” 7 original). 8 contacts are sufficiently substantial, continuous, and systematic, 9 we consider their ‘[l]ongevity, continuity, volume, economic 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 1 impact, physical presence, and integration into the state’s 11 regulatory or economic markets.’” 12 Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). 13 Ninth Circuit has observed that the “Supreme Court has found 14 general personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant in 15 only one case.” 16 Co., 342 U.S. 437, 447-48 (1952)). 17 The standard is an Id. at 1224 (citation omitted, (alterations in “To determine whether a nonresident defendant’s Id. (quoting Tuazon v. R.J. The Id. (citing Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining SiS-TW asserts that it is a Taiwanese corporation and is a 18 separate legal entity than Silicon Integrated Systems Corporation 19 (USA) (SiS-USA). 20 personal jurisdiction over it based simply on the relationship 21 between it and SiS-USA, which is a California corporation.1 It argues that the Court is unable to assert 22 23 24 1 25 26 27 28 The Court notes that ASUSTek and ACI have not brought claims against SiS-USA in their third party complaint. In their pleading, ASUSTek and ACI have asserted claims against a single party, “Silicon Integrated Systems Corp.,” which they allege to be a “Taiwanese company with a principal place of business” in Taiwan. Third-Party Compl. ¶ 5. They allege that this entity “is registered in California to do business,” id. at ¶ 6, but do not purport to bring claims against a California company. 4 1 SiS-TW has filed a declaration attesting to the following facts, among others. 3 it does not have an office in California and it does not have any 4 employees, officers, directors or managing agents located in 5 California or elsewhere in the United States. 6 6. 7 mailing address in California or the United States. 8 7. 9 California or the United States, does not have assets or service 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 2 locations in those areas and does not sell the products at issue 11 there. Its operations are based solely in Taiwan, Chen Decl. ¶¶ 3-4, It is not registered to do business and does not have a Id. at ¶¶ 5, It does not own property, pay taxes or file tax returns in Id. at ¶¶ 9-12. 12 SiS-TW attests that it entered into a purchase order 13 agreement with ASUSTeK, which is also a Taiwanese company, in 14 Taiwan, and sold and delivered its products to ASUSTeK there or in 15 China. 16 states that it has no control or direction over where ASUSTeK 17 sells its products and that, while it “is aware that ASUSTeK sells 18 its products worldwide including the United States in general, 19 SiS-TW has no knowledge as to where ASUSTeK specifically sells its 20 products in the United States.” 21 Id. at ¶¶ 13-14, 21; Third-Party Compl. ¶ 5. It also Chen Decl. ¶ 16. As to its relationship with SiS-USA, SiS-TW states that it 22 “is the grandparent organization of SiS-USA in a chain of 23 companies,” specifically that SiS-USA is a wholly-owned subsidiary 24 of a Cayman Islands company that is in turn a wholly-owned 25 subsidiary of SiS-TW. 26 entities maintain separate business records, external CPAs and 27 bank accounts. Id. at ¶ 27. Id. at ¶ 28. 28 5 It attests that the two 1 ASUSTeK and ACI do not contest “that a subsidiary’s contacts 2 with California do not, standing alone, confer jurisdiction on a 3 parent corporation” but contend that SIS-TW has “taken over the 4 role of the US entity” and now has sufficient minimum contacts 5 with California to support the exercise of general jurisdiction. 6 Docket No. 782, 2. 7 the parent and subsidiary are not really separate entities, or one 8 acts as an agent of the other, the local subsidiary’s contacts 9 with the forum may be imputed to the foreign parent corporation.’” The Ninth Circuit has recognized that, “‘if United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 926 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 11 El-Fadl v. Central Bank of Jordan, 75 F.3d 668, 676 (D.C. Cir. 12 1996)). 13 parental control of the subsidiary’s internal affairs or daily 14 operations.” 15 Ltd., 628 F.2d 1175, 1177 (9th Cir. 1980)). “An alter ego or agency relationship is typified by Id. (citing Kramer Motors, Inc. v. British Leyland, 16 ASUSTeK and ACI state that, in an answer filed in the Eastern 17 District of Texas last year, SiS-TW “admitted” that “[o]n November 18 18, 2008, SIS America decided to discontinue operations in the 19 United States; since then, SIS Taiwan has assumed responsibility 20 for United States sales.” 21 5). 22 report for itself and its subsidiaries and that an officer of the 23 American entity was a named inventor on seven United States 24 patents that were assigned to the Taiwanese entity. 25 Brigham Decl., Exs. 1-4). 26 Opp. at 2 (citing Brigham Decl., Ex. They also assert that SiS-TW has filed a joint financial Id. (citing These facts are not sufficient to show that SiS-TW maintained 27 “continuous and systematic” business operations in California or 28 that SiS-US is the agent or alter-ego of SiS-TW. 6 See Doe, 248 1 F.3d at 926-29 (explaining the requirements to show that an agency 2 or alter-ego relationship). 3 ASUSTeK and ACI have not met their burden to show that it has 4 general jurisdiction over SiS-TW. 5 2. Specific jurisdiction 6 Accordingly, the Court finds that Specific jurisdiction exists when the cause of action arises 7 out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum state, even if 8 those contacts are isolated and sporadic. 9 1287. Data Disc, 557 F.2d at Courts in this circuit use a three-prong test to determine United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 whether they may assert specific jurisdiction in a particular 11 case: (1) the foreign defendant must purposefully direct its 12 activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or a 13 resident thereof, or perform some act by which it purposefully 14 avails itself of the privilege of conducting business in the 15 forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; 16 (2) the claim must be one which arises out of or results from the 17 defendant’s forum-related activities; and (3) the exercise of 18 jurisdiction must be reasonable. 19 1421 (9th Cir. 1987). 20 to assert jurisdiction. 21 Cruz, 649 F.2d 1266, 1270 (9th Cir. 1981). 22 Lake v. Lake, 817 F.2d 1416, Each of these conditions must be satisfied Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Marina Salina ASUSTeK and ACI have not met their burden to meet the 23 purposeful direction or availment prong of this test. 24 “the Taiwan entity has admitted it is responsible for the US 25 entity’s previous sales activities through the United States.” 26 Docket No. 782, 7. 27 that it took responsibility for previous sales activity. 28 it has admitted that, since SiS-US discontinued its United States This is not correct. 7 They assert SiS-TW did not admit Instead, 1 operations in 2008, SIS-TW had assumed responsibility for United 2 States sales. 3 any United States sales activity during that period or that any 4 such activity took place within California. 5 3. Jurisdictional discovery 6 7 ASUSTeK and ACI request permission to pursue jurisdictional discovery. 8 9 However, there is no evidence that there have been SiS-TW opposes the request. Jurisdictional “discovery should ordinarily be granted where pertinent facts bearing on the question of jurisdiction are United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 controverted or where a more satisfactory showing of the facts is 11 necessary.” Laub v. United States DOI, 342 F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th 12 Cir. 2003). “[W]here a plaintiff’s claim of personal jurisdiction 13 appears to be both attenuated and based on bare allegations in the 14 face of specific denials made by the defendants, the Court need 15 not permit even limited discovery . . . .” 16 Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1160 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Terracom v. 17 Valley Nat. Bank, 49 F.3d 555, 562 (9th Cir. 1995)). 18 Pebble Beach Co. v. While there is not presently evidence of ongoing sales, in 19 light of SiS-TW’s admitted assumption of responsibility for United 20 States sales in 2008, jurisdictional discovery is appropriate 21 here. 22 23 Accordingly, ASUSTeK and ACI’s request is granted. B. Sufficiency of service SiS-TW further moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) on the 24 basis that it was not properly served with the third party 25 complaint. 26 A federal court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant 27 if service of process is insufficient. 28 Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987). 8 Omni Capital Int’l v. A court may dismiss 1 the action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5). 2 service is challenged, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing 3 that service was valid under Rule 4.” 4 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 4A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. 5 Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1083 (3d ed. 2002 & Supp. 6 2003)). 7 “Once Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d The certificate of service shows that ASUSTeK and ACI served 8 Isabel Chiu by personal service on January 23, 2013. 9 684. Docket No. SiS-TW attests that Ms. Chiu is the registered agent for United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 service of process in the California for SiS-US, that she is not 11 authorized to accept service on behalf of SiS-TW, that she has 12 never had any relationship with SiS-TW and that it does not have 13 an authorized agent for service of process within the state. 14 Decl. ¶¶ 22-25. 15 Chiu ASUSTeK and ACI assert, without any citation to supporting 16 authority, that, because “SiS took the place of its California 17 subsidiary,” service upon the subsidiary’s registered agent 18 constituted sufficient service. 19 assuming that such service could under some circumstances be 20 proper, SiS-TW did not “take the place of” SIS-US; instead, it 21 assumed responsibility for United States sales after 2008. 22 Docket No. 782. However, even “Where service of process is insufficient, the court has the 23 option of dismissing the action or quashing the service and 24 retaining the case.” 25 LEXIS 37881, at *7 (N.D. Cal.) (citation omitted). 26 service will be quashed in those cases in which there is a 27 reasonable prospect that the plaintiff will be able to serve the 28 defendant properly.” O’Haire v. Napa State Hosp., 2010 U.S. Dist. “Generally Id. (internal quotation marks and citations 9 1 omitted). 2 that ASUSTeK and ACI will be able to serve SiS-TW properly. 3 the Court quashes service but does not dismiss the third party 4 complaint at this time. 5 C. Claims by ACI 6 Here, it appears that there is a reasonable prospect Thus, Finally, SiS-TW argues that the indemnity claims by ACI 7 should be dismissed because ACI was not a party to the purchase 8 agreement and cannot enforce any rights under the agreement. 9 ACI does not dispute that it was not a signatory to the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 agreement. 11 subsidiary of ASUSTeK, as alleged in the third party complaint, 12 and that it is responsible for sales and distribution of ASUSTeK’s 13 products in the United States, which was not alleged in the third 14 party complaint. 15 indemnity provision because that provision states in relevant 16 part, 17 18 19 20 21 Instead, it contends that it was a wholly owned It contends that it is thus able to enforce the “If Asustek suffers from any prosecution, claim, allegation, appeal, request, action or other legal procedures because the supplier breaches the above guarantees, the supplier shall agree to defend Asustek and its directors, executives, employees, successors, assignees, agents and clients and compensate them for any loss, damage, responsibility and expenses incurred thereby (including reasonable attorney fees and legal fees).” 22 Brigham Decl., Ex. 8. 23 beneficiary of the agreement. 24 under this provision or may be a third party beneficiary of the 25 agreement, it has not plead facts sufficient to allege such a 26 conclusion at this time. ASI also contends that it is a third party However, although ASI may fall 27 28 10 1 Accordingly, the Court grants SiS-TW’s motion to dismiss 2 ACI’s claims. 3 the complaint to resolve this deficiency. 4 II. This dismissal is without prejudice to ACI amending USEI’s motion for leave to file 5 A. Background 6 On January 17, 2013, the Court granted ASUSTek and ACI leave 7 to file a third-party complaint against SiS. 8 their motion and proposed third-party complaint, they had alleged 9 that SiS sold them products that they then incorporated into their Docket No. 679. In United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 own goods and that SiS’s products provide the functionality in 11 their goods that USEI was accusing of infringing its patents. 12 USEI had opposed the motion for leave, arguing that impleader of 13 SiS would unnecessarily complicate issues at trial. 14 On February 5, 2013, Defendant Apple, Inc. filed a motion for 15 leave to file a third party complaint against Oracle. 16 asserted that USEI had accused “certain Apple products of 17 infringing the patents-in-suit based on their use of Ethernet 18 technology supplied by Sun Microsystems,” which was subsequently 19 acquired by Oracle. 20 Apple Docket No. 685. On February 19, 2013, the Court entered a scheduling order 21 requiring that “any party who wishes to add a party or claims” 22 must “file a motion seeking leave to do so” by March 14, 2013. 23 Docket No. 691. 24 Thereafter, USEI moved for leave to assert claims against 25 SiS, as well as against Oracle and any other third parties that 26 the Court allowed into the related cases. 27 28 On April 18, 2013, the Court granted Apple’s motion and denied USEI’s motion. Docket No. 734. 11 The Court noted that USEI 1 had not stated “what claims it would like to assert against these 2 parties” and had failed to submit “a proposed amended complaint 3 setting forth the claims it seeks to bring against any of these 4 parties” as required by the Civil Local Rules. 5 specified, “This denial is without prejudice to USEI filing a 6 renewed motion for leave to amend to assert claims against these 7 parties, provided that it attaches its proposed amended pleading 8 to any such motion.” 9 The Court Id. at 7. B. Legal standard United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a 11 scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause and with the 12 judge’s consent.” 13 ability to amend its pleading is governed by this good cause 14 standard, not the more liberal standard of Rule 15(a)(2). 15 v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992). 16 In order to determine whether good cause exists, courts primarily 17 consider the diligence of the party seeking the modification. 18 at 609; see also Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1294 19 (9th Cir. 2000). Where a schedule has been ordered, a party’s Johnson Id. 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave of 21 the court allowing a party to amend its pleading “shall be freely 22 given when justice so requires.” 23 when assessing the propriety of a motion for leave to amend: undue 24 delay, bad faith, futility of amendment, prejudice to the opposing 25 party and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the 26 complaint. 27 1055 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009). Courts consider five factors Ahlmeyer v. Nev. Sys. of Higher Educ., 555 F.3d 1051, 28 12 1 C. Discussion 2 In its motion, USEI did not attempt to show that its proposed 3 amendment would satisfy the requirements of either Rule 15 or 16. 4 In its opposition, Oracle argues that it would be prejudiced by 5 the proposed amendment, that USEI has unjustifiably delayed in the 6 seeking leave to assert claims against Oracle and that USEI has 7 previously amended its complaint. 8 9 Even applying the more lenient Rule 15 standard, the Court finds that Oracle has met its burden to show that USEI United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 unreasonably delayed in bringing it into this litigation and that 11 Oracle was prejudiced as a result of this delay. 12 Oracle points out that, by April 2010, USEI knew that it was 13 challenging Oracle’s technology, because at that time, USEI 14 purportedly served Apple with supplemental infringement 15 contentions that identified Oracle Ethernet technology, 16 specifically the “Sun GEM Ethernet Controller Family,” 17 incorporated into certain Apple products as the bases for its 18 alleged infringement. 19 contentions against Oracle now would be unduly prejudicial 20 because, among other things, it would be deprived of the 21 opportunity to participate in the claim construction proceedings 22 that have already taken place and the dispositive summary judgment 23 that is now pending. 24 Specifically, Allowing USEI to assert infringement USEI argues that it acted quickly to add Oracle to the case 25 once “the possibility of Oracle joining the litigation arose” when 26 Apple filed its motion to bring indemnification claims against 27 Oracle and asserts that Oracle could have intervened in the case 28 to protect its interests. However, USEI does not dispute that it 13 1 was aware of the factual basis for the claims that it seeks to 2 assert more than two years before it made any attempt to add 3 Oracle to this litigation. 4 affirmatively sought to be part of this litigation does not excuse 5 USEI’s unreasonable delay. 6 That Oracle could hypothetically have USEI further contends that any possible issue of prejudice 7 that would result from adding Oracle has already been resolved 8 because the Court permitted Apple to assert claims against it. 9 However, as Oracle points out, the claims presently asserted United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 against it by Apple do not implicate all of the claims that USEI 11 seeks to make now. 12 that it seeks to accuse more of Oracle’s products than those 13 associated with already-accused Apple products. 14 Oracle is now a party to this action, it is not presently involved 15 in all issues raised in this case. 16 sold Apple Ethernet technology that USEI is now accusing of 17 infringement. 18 Oracle is required to pay for Apple’s defense costs and any 19 potential settlement or judgment in this case and whether Apple’s 20 indemnification claim is barred based on one of Oracle’s various 21 defenses, such as estoppel, laches and breach of contract based on 22 Apple’s failure to provide it with reasonably prompt notice of 23 USEI’s infringement claims. 24 infringement allegations asserted directly against Oracle. 25 Accordingly, the Court denies the USEI’s motion to assert claims 26 against Oracle. For instance, USEI is very clear in its reply Further, although Oracle has admitted that it The issue between Oracle and Apple is whether These claims are very different than 27 Finally, USEI moves to assert claims against “Silicon 28 Integrated Systems Corporation,” which it alleges is a company 14 1 organized and existing under the laws of California. 2 Second Am. Compl. ¶ 14. 3 SiS-USA is dependent on it already being a party to this case as a 4 result of the third party complaint. 5 SiS-USA was not named as a defendant in the third party complaint. 6 Further, the Court has granted the motion to dismiss the third 7 party complaint against SiS-TW, the only SiS entity that was named 8 in that pleading. 9 leave to assert claims against SiS-USA. Proposed USEI’s motion to assert claims against However, as noted above, Accordingly, the Court denies USEI’s motion for United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES USEI’s 12 motion for leave to assert claims against Oracle and SiS-USA and 13 GRANTS SiS-TW’s motion to quash and dismiss. 14 ASUSTeK and ASI are granted leave to file an amended third 15 party complaint within seven days of the date of this Order and 16 shall serve it within twenty-one days thereafter. 17 is effectuated, and provided that it is not quashed, they may 18 engage in limited jurisdictional discovery with SiS. 19 This Order resolves Docket Nos. 754 and 731. 20 After service IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 23 Dated: 8/7/2013 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 15

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?