Aerielle Technologies Inc v. Belkin International Inc et al

Filing 158

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 145 Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute Plaintiff.(lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

AERIELLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-01301-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN
TIME FOR HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PLAINTIFF
(re: dkt. #145)

On October 25, 2011, Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Aerielle Technologies, Inc.

18

(“Aerielle” or “Plaintiff”) simultaneously filed a Motion to Substitute Party and an Ex Parte

19

Application to Shorten Time for Hearing on that Motion. See ECF Nos. 145, 146. In its Ex Parte

20

Application, Plaintiff asks this Court to deem Aerielle’s Motion to Substitute Party filed as of

21

October 25, 2011 and to set it for hearing on November 22, 2011, the same day as a further case

22

management conference scheduled in this case, rather than on February 2, 2012, the next available

23

hearing date as of the time Aerielle filed its Ex Parte Application.

24

Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Belkin International, Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc., Best

25

Buy.com, LLC, Best Buy Stores, L.P., and RadioShack Corporation (collectively “Defendants”)

26

filed a response on October 31, 2011, opposing Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application. Defendants

27

oppose principally on grounds that Plaintiff’s failure to timely produce documents relevant to the

28

assignments of rights in the two patents-in-suit renders the proposed expedited briefing schedule on
1
Case No.: 10-CV-01301-LHK
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING

1

Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Party “unrealistic and prejudicial to Defendants.” ECF No. 150.

2

On September 21, 2011, after Plaintiff informed the Court that it had assigned its intellectual

3

property rights in the two patents-in-suit to a creditor named “Great American Life” or “Great

4

American Insurance,” the Court ordered Plaintiff to produce all documents relevant to the

5

assignment by September 28, 2011. See ECF No. 138. Defendants assert that Plaintiff produced

6

over 1,200 pages of ownership-related documents on October 21, 2011, nearly a month after the

7

Court-ordered deadline, and just shortly before filing its Ex Parte Application and Motion to

8

Substitute Party. ECF No. 150 at 4. Furthermore, Defendants provide evidence that Plaintiff’s

9

production of relevant documents remained incomplete even at the time of filing its Motion. Id.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Ex. A.

11

Had Plaintiff fully complied with the Court’s September 21, 2011 Order, it could have

12

moved to substitute plaintiff much sooner. Instead, it waited until October 25, 2011 to file its

13

motion, and now asks the Court for an expedited hearing. The Court finds that Plaintiff has

14

exhibited a pattern of not being forthcoming regarding the assignment of rights, a matter that is

15

indispensable to determining Plaintiff’s standing and the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over

16

this action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application. Pursuant to this

17

Order, Plaintiff shall re-file its Motion to Substitute Party and notice it for the next available

18

hearing date after consulting Ms. Martha Parker-Brown, the Courtroom Deputy.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: November 17, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 10-CV-01301-LHK
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING