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).

1

5

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
David S. Bloch (SBN: 184530)
[e-mail]
Nicholas W. Short (SBN: 253922)
[e-mail]
101 California Street, Suite 3900
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

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)