Angioscore, Inc. v. Trireme Medical, Inc. et al

Filing 190

ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING AND VACATING HEARING. The motion hearing set for 4/8/2014 is VACATED. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 4/2/14. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

ANGIOSCORE, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No.: 12-CV-3393 YGR
ORDER REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
AND VACATING HEARING

vs.
TRIREME MEDICAL, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
On February 26, 2014, plaintiff AngioScore, Inc. filed a motion for an order declaring that

17

substitute service purportedly made upon defendants Quattro Vascular PTE Ltd. ("Quattro") and QT

18

Vascular Ltd. ("QTV") was effective and that this Court has personal jurisdiction over those

19

defendants. (Dkt. No. 176 and exhibits.) Quattro and QTV have not appeared in this action.

20

On March 12, 2014, defendants TriReme Medical LLC, f/k/a TriReme Medical, Inc., and

21

Eitan Konstantino (collectively, "TriReme") filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion. (Dkt. No. 182.)

22

TriReme spends the lion's share of the opposition arguing that: (i) service of process on QTV and

23

Quattro is deficient; this Court has no personal jurisdiction over those entities; and plaintiff is not

24

entitled to jurisdictional discovery. (Id. at 5-21.) However, TriReme also raises the threshold issue

25

of whether plaintiff had a legal basis for its motion in the first instance. (Id. at 4.) TriReme asserts

26

that the motion "violates QTV's and Quattro's due process rights by improperly attempting to

27

preempt their ability under [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5) to challenge this

28

Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction and sufficiency of service." (Id. at 1.)

On March 19, 2014, plaintiff filed a reply. (Dkt. No. 186 and exhibits.) The reply, inter alia,

1
2

proffers authority to show plaintiff's legal basis for its motion and argues that the motion is, in fact,

3

unopposed because only TriReme responded, not Quattro or QTV. No defendant has had an

4

opportunity to respond to either issue. The Court finds it appropriate to receive such a response.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the parties to file supplemental briefs on the following two

5
6
7
8
9

issues:
1) whether plaintiff had a legal basis to bring its motion; and
2) whether TriReme (as opposed to Quattro or QTV) had authority to oppose the motion
and, if not, what effect.
TriReme shall file its supplemental brief no later than seven days after the signature date of

Northern District of California

this Order. Plaintiff shall file a responsive supplemental brief no later than seven days after TriReme

11

United States District Court

10

files its supplemental brief. Both briefs shall be limited to the issues stated in this Order and shall

12

not exceed five pages in length, exclusive of supporting declarations or exhibits, or any associated

13

administrative motion to seal.

14
15
16

In light of the need for supplemental briefing, the Court VACATES the motion hearing set for
on April 8, 2014. If oral argument is required, the Court shall reschedule it at a later time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: April 2, 2014

__________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2