Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD

Filing 249

Statement Re Defendant Fusion Garage PTE, Ltd.'s Failure to Oppose 246 Plaintiffs' Application for Default Judgment by CrunchPad, Inc., Interserve, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Bloch, David) (Filed on 4/9/2012) Modified on 4/10/2012 (gba, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 5 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP David S. Bloch (SBN: 184530) Nicholas W. Short (SBN: 253922) 101 California Street, Suite 3900 San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 Telephone: (415) 591-1000 Facsimile: (415) 591-1400 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 2 3 4 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Winston & Strawn LLP 8 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 11 TECHCRUNCH, INC., et al. 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiffs, vs. FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. C 09-cv-05812-RS (PSG) PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT RE DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE, LTD.’S FAILURE TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Date: May 10, 2012 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom # 3 18 The sad saga of Fusion Garage’s destruction of the CrunchPad—the world’s first tablet 19 computer—is nearly over. Plaintiffs TechCrunch and CrunchPad have been waiting for justice since 20 2009, when they sued their erstwhile joint venturer, Fusion Garage, after it misappropriated the fruits 21 of their shared labor and (disastrously) launched their tablet computer solo as the “joojoo.” As the 22 Court has previously held, “[Fusion Garage] may have breached fiduciary duties arising from a joint 23 venture between the parties”; “the parties’ conduct in jointly working to develop a tablet computer 24 speaks louder than any uncertainties that may have existed between them as to the details of how 25 their relationship would be structured.” Dkt. No. 162 at 2, 8 n. 3. Over the course of nearly three 26 years, Fusion Garage bobbed and weaved, only to finally drop out of the case altogether and abscond 27 to Singapore. The Court and clerk duly held Fusion Garage in default, Dkt. No. 241, and now the 28 -1PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT RE DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD.’S FAILURE TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Case No. C 09-cv-05812-RS (PSG) 1 2 moment of reckoning is finally at hand. On March 23, 2012, TechCrunch and CrunchPad filed their application for default judgment opposition was due within 14 days of filing and service, on April 6, 2012. Civil Local R. 7-3(a). 5 Fusion Garage failed to appear or oppose the default judgment application. It has, quite simply, 6 surrendered. So there is no need to rehash the facts Plaintiffs have established, no need for a detailed 7 reply, and no reason for the Court to expend additional judicial and party resources holding an 8 evidentiary hearing. Fusion Garage broke its promises to TechCrunch and CrunchPad, it failed to 9 defend itself in this litigation over those broken promises, and it must now be judged guilty of grave 10 101 California Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 against Fusion Garage. Dkt. Nos. 242, 246. Under this Court’s local rules, Fusion Garage’s 4 Winston & Strawn LLP 3 breaches of its fiduciary duties to its innocent business partners. This case is over, and it is now time 11 to move from the merits to the nontrivial task of collecting on the judgment. 12 13 TechCrunch and CrunchPad respectfully ask that the Court vacate the May 10 hearing and enter a default judgment against Fusion Garage and in their favor, in the form attached as Exhibit A. 14 15 16 17 18 19 Respectfully submitted, Dated: April 9, 2012 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP By: /s/ Nicholas Short David S. Bloch Nicholas Short Attorneys for TechCrunch and CrunchPad 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT RE DEFENDANT FUSION GARAGE PTE LTD.’S FAILURE TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Case No. C 09-cv-05812-RS (PSG)

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?