Sonics, Inc. v. Arteris, Inc.

Filing 75

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG granting 73 Motion for Reconsideration (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

OAKLAND DIVISION

6
7 SONICS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

8
9

vs.

Case No: C 11-05311 SBA
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION AND
GRANTING MOTION TO
RELATE CASES

10 ARTERIS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Docket 73
Defendant.

11
12
13

On April 24, 2012, Plaintiff Sonics, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed a motion for leave to file a

14

motion for reconsideration of this Court's determination that Arteris S.A.S. v. Sonics, Inc.,

15

C 12-00434-WHA is not related to Sonics, Inc. v. Arteris, Inc., C 11-05311-SBA under

16

Civil Local Rule 3-12. Dkt. 32. On August 13, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to

17

file a motion for reconsideration.1 Dkt. 55. On November 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion

18

for reconsideration. Dkt. 73. On November 9, 2012, Defendant Arteris, Inc. filed a

19

statement of non-opposition. Dkt. 74.

20

Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and being

21

fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. The

22

Court finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that reconsideration is appropriate on the ground

23

that new facts emerged after the Court determined that Arteris S.A.S. v. Sonics, Inc., C 12-

24
1

To the extent Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration requests that the Court
consolidate the two cases, Plaintiff's request is DENIED without prejudice. The Court
26 granted Plaintiff leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's prior related case
Order. Because that Order did not involve a determination of whether consolidation is
27 appropriate, the Court finds that the issue of consolidation is not properly before the Court.
If Plaintiff believes that consolidation is appropriate, Plaintiff may file a duly noticed
28 motion pursuant to Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
25

1

00434-WHA is not related to Sonics, Inc. v. Arteris, Inc., C 11-05311-SBA. Upon

2

reconsideration of Plaintiff's motion to relate cases, the Court finds that Arteris S.A.S. v.

3

Sonics, Inc., C 12-00434-WHA is related to Sonics, Inc. v. Arteris, Inc., C 11-05311-SBA

4

within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 3-12. Therefore, Arteris S.A.S. v. Sonics, Inc., C

5

12-00434-WHA shall be assigned to the undersigned.

6

Accordingly,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

8

1.

Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is GRANTED.

9

2.

Plaintiff's motion to relate Arteris S.A.S. v. Sonics, Inc., C 12-00434-WHA

10

with the instant case is GRANTED. Counsel are advised that all future filings in the

11

reassigned case shall bear the initials SBA immediately after the case number.

12

3.

A Case Management Conference is scheduled for December 13, 2012 at

13

3:00 p.m. Prior to the date scheduled for the conference, the parties shall meet and confer

14

and prepare a joint Case Management Conference Statement. Plaintiff is responsible for

15

filing the joint statement no less than seven (7) days prior to the conference date. The joint

16

statement shall comply with the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of

17

California and the Standing Orders of this Court. Plaintiff is responsible for setting up the

18

conference call, and on the specified date and time, shall call [phone] with all

19

parties on the line.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 11/21/12

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-