Brandt v. Nvidia Corporation, et al

Filing 4

ORDER Denying Administrative Motion to Relate Cases. Signed by Judge James Ware on October 24, 2008. (jwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Carlyle Fortran Trust, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION NO. C 05-00427 JW NO. C 08-04634 RMW ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE CASES /

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

NVIDIA Corp., Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Defendant NVIDIA's Administrative Motion to Relate Cases. (hereafter, "Motion," Docket Item No. 253.) Defendant moves pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11 to relate Brandt v. NVIDIA Corp., C 08-04634-RMW ("Bankruptcy Appeal") with the following cases currently pending before the Court: Carlyle Fortran Trust v. NVIDIA Corp., C 0500427-JW; CarrAmerica Realty Corp. v. NVIDIA Corp., C 05-00428-JW; Brandt v. NVIDIA Corp., C 05-00429-JW; NVIDIA Corp. v. Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, C 06-03238-JW; NVIDA Corp. v. Brandt, C 06-3856-JW. Defendant contends that the Bankruptcy Appeal is related to the above cases because (1) they all arise from the same "negotiation, structure, execution, purpose, effect of, obligations under, and purchase by NVIDIA of certain assets" pursuant to an "Asset Purchase Agreement;" and (2) conducting the Bankruptcy Appeal before Judge Whyte will result in "unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense and a risk of conflicting results." (Motion at 4-5.) Civil Local Rule 3-12(a) provides that an action is related to another when (1) [t]he actions concern substantially the same parties, property, transaction, or event; and (2) [i]t appears likely that

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different judges. Upon review of the papers submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the Bankruptcy Appeal is not related to the above cases within the meaning of Civil L.R. 3-12. In particular, the Court sees little possibility of "unduly burdensome duplication of labor . . . or conflicting results" if the Bankruptcy Appeal is conducted before Judge Whyte. The other five cases pending before the Court are either on appeal before the Ninth Circuit or have been inactive for over two years. (See Opposition to NVIDIA Defendant's Administrative Motion to Relate Cases at 1-3, Docket Item No. 256.) The Bankruptcy Appeal, in contrast, is presently on appeal from a trial before the Bankruptcy Court and subsequent summary judgment. Given the current inactive or on-appeal status of the allegedly related cases, and given that the Bankruptcy Appeal will involve a narrow review of issues decided by the Bankruptcy Court, the Court is not concerned by the possibilities of duplicative labor or of conflicting results. Accordingly, Defendant NVIDIA's Administrative Motion to Relate Cases is DENIED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Dated: October 24, 2008

JAMES WARE United States District Judge

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO: Andrew A. August [e-mail] Douglas A. Applegate [e-mail] Dwight Craig Donovan [e-mail] George M. Lee [e-mail] Henry H. Oh [e-mail] James Neil Kramer [e-mail] Jonathan B. Gaskin [e-mail] Justin Myer Lichterman [e-mail] Karen Johnson-McKewan [e-mail] Kim Y. Arnone [e-mail] Leah Anne Nutting [e-mail] Michael Todd Scott [e-mail] Morgan William Tovey [e-mail] Richard C. Darwin [e-mail] Robert P. Varian [e-mail] Ruth Young Kwon [e-mail]

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

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

Dated: October 24, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: /s/ JW Chambers Elizabeth Garcia Courtroom Deputy