Intellisoft, Ltd v. International Business Machines Corporation

Filing 30

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting in part and denying in part 19 Motion to Dismiss; ORDER staying case. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2012)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
INTELLISOFT, LTD.,
9
Plaintiff,

No. C 12-1462 PJH

v.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

13

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS;
ORDER STAYING CASE

Defendant.
_______________________________/

14
15

The motion of defendant International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) for an

16

order dismissing the claims asserted against it in the first amended complaint (“FAC”) came

17

on for hearing before this court on September 12, 2012. Plaintiff Intellisoft Ltd. appeared

18

by its counsel J. Paul Gignac, and IBM appeared by its counsel Peter Stone and Erica

19

Schulz. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments, and

20

good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as follows and for the reasons stated at the

21

hearing.

22

The motion to dismiss the FAC based on the doctrine of laches, and motion to

23

dismiss for lack of standing are DENIED, as the court finds that these issues can only be

24

properly addressed in a motion for summary judgment, based on a factual record.

25

The motion to dismiss the FAC based on the running of the statute of limitations is

26

GRANTED with leave to amend to allege facts showing that the running of the statute was

27

tolled based on application of the discovery rule. Because this issue is currently under

28

appeal in the case of Bierman v. IBM, C-10-4199 PJH, the court finds that the present case

1

should be STAYED pending a ruling by the Ninth Circuit. The second amended complaint

2

will be due 30 days after the stay is lifted.

3

The motion to dismiss the FAC for improper claim splitting is DENIED, without

4

prejudice to renewing after the stay is lifted. Because the court is persuaded that no factual

5

development is likely to be required prior to resolving this issue, IBM can renew the

6

argument in a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim directed at the second amended

7

complaint.

8
9

Dated: September 13, 2012
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2