The Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu, LLC et al

Filing 48

Defendant ConnectU's Opposition to Facebook's Motion to Advance the Case Management Conference ([40}) filed by ConnectU, LLC. (Mosko, Scott) (Filed on 4/12/2007) Modified on 4/18/2007 (bw, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
The Facebook, Inc. v. Connectu, LLC et al Doc. 48 Case 5:07-cv-01389-RS Document 48 Filed 04/12/2007 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Scott R. Mosko (State Bar No. 106070) FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. Stanford Research Park 3300 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 849-6600 Facsimile: (650) 849-6666 Attorneys for Defendant ConnectU LLC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION FACEBOOK, INC. Plaintiff, v. CONNECTU LLC, (now known as CONNECTU INC.) PACIFIC NORTHWEST SOFTWARE, INC., WINSTON WILLIAMS, AND DOES 1-25, Defendants. CASE NO. C 07-01389 RS DEFENDANT CONNECTU'S OPPOSITION TO FACEBOOK'S MOTION TO ADVANCE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Doc. No. 461257 Connectu's Opposition to Facebook's Motion to Advance the CMC CASE NO. C 07-01389 RS Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:07-cv-01389-RS Document 48 Filed 04/12/2007 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff's request to advance the CMC from June 20, 2007 to April 27, 2007 is both unreasonable and unnecessary. The Northern District generally sets the initial CMC approximately 100 days after the action is initiated. In this case the CMC was set 103 days after Defendant ConnectU LLC removed it from state court. By that time, the parties should have had the chance to challenge the viability of the pleadings through motions to dismiss, the results of which many times limit or change the scope of the case. As the Court's calendar will reflect, ConnectU has noticed such a motion for hearing on May 2, 2007. These 100 days also provide defendants with the opportunity to investigate the charging allegations, and marshal whatever evidence they believe is necessary to defend the case during the Rule 26 stay of discovery. These 100 days between the initiation of the federal action and the CMC represent a reasonable time for such investigation and should not be disturbed without good cause. Plaintiff does not establish good cause in this request. Plaintiff tells this Court none of this ramp up investigation is necessary because this case was removed from the state court. The Northern District does not provide for a different schedule in the case of removal. Plaintiff further and inaccurately tells this Court that before this case was removed, the state court was on the verge of setting trial1. This case was removed because Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that substantially changed the issues and added two new parties. Plaintiff's state court complaint is comprised of two counts. The First Amended Complaint is comprised of seven counts, including two causes of action arising under federal law and new causes of action arising under the general laws of Massachusetts. Plaintiff has had a substantial time to investigate these new claims. ConnectU just learned about them. The 100 days between the initiation of the federal action and the CMC is a reasonable time that will allow for the development of a thoughtful and comprehensive approach. It should not be shortened. While shortening the time to the CMC would be a strain on the originally named defendant, ConnectU LLC, it would be even more burdensome on the two new parties recently added to this case. Plaintiff effectively tells this Court these new parties should be prepared to go to trial now Plaintiff interestingly tells this Court that the state court would have set a trial date at its next CMC. In light of the condition of the amended complaint, Defendant strongly disagrees. Doc. No. 461257 1 1 Connectu's Opposition to Facebook's Motion to Advance the CMC CASE NO. C 07-01389 RS Case 5:07-cv-01389-RS Document 48 Filed 04/12/2007 Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 because they retained the same counsel as the earlier-named defendant, ConnectU LLC. Plaintiff fails to explain whether or why it believes these new parties should be treated as if they were the alter ego of ConnectU. Certainly no such allegation exists in the First Amended Complaint. These new parties are separate from ConnectU. They have different issues than those facing ConnectU. For example, these new parties do not believe this Court has jurisdiction over them. And, as this Court knows, these new parties have filed motions challenging the assertion of jurisdiction over them. Even if such motions had not been filed, certainly these parties are entitled to the same due process, which includes the time to investigate and analyze this case as other entities recently named in an action. Plaintiff chose to name these new parties--they did not voluntarily enter this litigation on their own. The logical steps and approaches provided by this Court's schedule should not be interrupted, particularly where a Plaintiff has decided to bring in new parties. Plaintiff's request inaccurately and unfairly characterizes many of the activities in both the state court case and a District of Massachusetts case involving some of the same parties. Because none of these inaccuracies--such as the reference to individuals "recanting" testimony, the characterization of defendants acts, or some of the so-called "pending" activity in state court--has any bearing on this motion, ConnectU will not waste time correcting the record. Suffice it to say they are inaccurate. This is a new case which was removed from state court as a result of a recently-filed amended complaint. Plaintiff provides no justification for altering the schedule established by the Northern District of California. The current June 20, 2007 CMC should remain on calendar. Respectfully submitted, Dated: April 12, 2007 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. /s/ Scott R. Mosko Scott R. Mosko, Attorneys for Defendant ConnectU LLC Doc. No. 461257 2 Connectu's Opposition to Facebook's Motion to Advance the CMC CASE NO. C 07-01389 RS

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?