Oracle America, Inc. v. Myriad Group AG

Filing 60

ORDER, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 59 Preliminary Injunction, and Partial Stay of Court Order., Motions terminated: 59 Ex Parte MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Oracle America, Inc.. Responses due by 12/8/2011. Replies due by 12/13/2011.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 11/30/11. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 OAKLAND DIVISION 9 ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Case No: C 10-05604 SBA 10 Plaintiff, 11 vs. 12 MYRIAD GROUP AG, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 13 Defendant. Dkt. 59 14 15 16 The parties are presently before the Court on Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for 17 temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and order to show cause regarding preliminary 18 injunction, and request for partial stay of court order. Dkt. 59. Having read and 19 considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully informed, the 20 Court hereby DENIES the motion for TRO and GRANTS Plaintiff’s alternate request for 21 an order directing Defendant to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be 22 issued. 23 I. 24 BACKGROUND The instant action arises from a software licensing dispute between Plaintiff Oracle 25 America, Inc. and Defendant Myriad Group AG. The Complaint filed by Plaintiff on 26 December 10, 2010, alleges four claims for relief, as follows: (1) trademark infringement 27 under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); (2) copyright infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 101, 28 et seq.; (3) breach of contract; and (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law 1 (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Dkt. 1. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to 2 compel arbitration of all claims alleged in the pleadings. Dkt. 18. 3 On August 15, 2011, Defendant submitted a demand for arbitration with the 4 International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“IDR”) with respect to the claims alleged by 5 Plaintiff in this action. Shohet Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. B, Dkt. 59-1, 59-3. Approximately two 6 weeks later, on September 1, 2011, the Court issued its ruling on Defendant’s pending 7 motion to compel arbitration. The Court granted Defendant’s motion with respect to 8 Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract and denied the motion with respect to all other 9 claims. Dkt. 42 at 12.1 In addition, the Court referred the matter to a magistrate judge of 10 this Court for an early, mandatory settlement conference and held the action in abeyance 11 pending the conclusion of the settlement conference. 12 The settlement conference took place on November 3, 2011 before Magistrate Judge 13 Laporte, but the case did not settle. Dkt. 57. The next day on November 4, 2011, 14 Defendant reinitiated the arbitration proceeding before the IDR by designating a proposed 15 arbitrator, thereby triggering a thirty-day period for Plaintiff to agree or propose an 16 alternate arbitrator. Shohet Decl. ¶ 10; Pl.’s Mot. at 6. 17 On November 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed the instant ex parte motion for TRO and order 18 to show cause regarding preliminary injunction, and request for partial stay of court order. 19 Dkt. 59. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant from proceeding with the arbitration before the 20 IDR and to stay the portion of the Court’s September 1, 2011 Order directing the parties to 21 arbitrate Plaintiff’s contract claim. 22 II. 23 DISCUSSION A TRO under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 is an extraordinary remedy that is 24 generally reserved for emergency situations in which a party may suffer immediate 25 irreparable harm. See Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 445 U.S. 1, 20 n.33 (1980) (temporary 26 1 After receiving the Court’s ruling, Plaintiff requested that Defendant dismiss its demand for arbitration before the IDR, but Defendant refused to do so. Shohet Decl. ¶¶ 628 7. 27 -2- 1 restraining orders used for “emergency situations”); c.f., Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle 2 Pub. Co., 762 F.2d 1374, 1377 (9th Cir. 1985) (delay in seeking injunctive weighs against a 3 finding of urgency). No such emergency is evident in this action. Since August 15, 2011, 4 Plaintiff has been aware of Defendant’s efforts to arbitrate all of the Plaintiff’s claims in a 5 proceeding before the IDR. More recently on November 4, 2011, Defendant allegedly 6 reinitiated the arbitration proceeding by designating a proposed arbitrator. Yet, Plaintiff 7 waited until November 29, 2011 before filing the instant motion for TRO. In view of this 8 delay, the Court, in its discretion, concludes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a 9 sufficient exigency exists to justify imposition of a TRO. Rather, this matter is more 10 appropriately heard in the context of Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a TRO is 13 DENIED. Plaintiff’s request for an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction 14 should not issue is GRANTED. By no later than December 8, 2011, Defendant shall file its 15 response to Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction and request for partial stay. 16 Plaintiff’s reply shall be filed by no later than December 13, 2011. No hearing will be held 17 on the motion unless otherwise ordered by the Court. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 30, 2011 _______________________________ SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

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?