Lantiq North America, Inc. et al v. Ralink Technology Corporation et al

Filing 94

ORDER Granting 81 MOTION to Strike Lantiq's Second Amended Complaint ; Denying 83 Motion to Continue. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to consolidate is GRANTED. This action, 5:11-CV-1549, shall be consolidated with the prima ry case, 5:11-CV-00234. This action, 5:11-CV- 1549, shall be closed. All future documents shall be filed under the case number and caption of the primary case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ralink Taiwan may file an amended answer and counter-complaint no later than 2/29/2012. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/1/2012 (ejdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2012) Modified text on 2/1/2012 (ecg, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SAN JOSE DIVISION LANTIQ DEUTSCHLAND GMBH, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. RALINK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 5:11-CV-00234 EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE AND DENYING MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER AS MOOT (Re: Docket Nos. 81, 83) 17 On October 14, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Case Management Conference Statement in 18 which they agreed to a “Deadline to Amend Pleadings without Leave of Court” on November 25, 19 2011. See Docket No. 65 at 9:7. This statement is signed by counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for 20 Defendants. On October 24, 2011, the court issued the Case Management Order, which included 21 the order that “the deadline for joinder of any additional parties or other amendment to the 22 pleadings, is sixty days after entry of this order.” Docket No. 71 at 1:26-28. On December 23, 23 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint. See Docket No. 79. On January 9, 2012, 24 Defendants filed a motion to strike the Second Amended Complaint. On January 17, 2012, 25 Defendants filed a motion to continue dates relating to claims construction in light of the new 26 parties and claims in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. The court finds that these motions 27 are appropriate for determination without oral argument. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 28 1 Case No.: 5:11-CV-00234 EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE AND DENYING MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER AS MOOT 1 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), when amendment is not a matter of right, a party may 2 amend its pleading “only with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Although 3 the parties’ Joint Case Management Conference Statement arguably gives Plaintiffs written consent 4 to amend their complaint until November 25, 2011, Plaintiffs missed that deadline. Plaintiffs argue 5 that the Case Management Order provided them with the right to amend their pleadings without 6 leave of court until December 23, 2012. Nowhere in the Case Management Order does the court 7 provide the leave required by Rule 15 or order that leave is not required. The court merely set a 8 deadline for amendment consistent with all applicable rules. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended 9 Complaint therefore was improperly filed without leave of court. Accordingly, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to strike is GRANTED. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to continue dates in light of the Second 12 13 14 15 16 Amended Complaint is DENIED AS MOOT. Dated: _________________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No.: 5:11-CV-00234 EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE AND DENYING MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER AS MOOT

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?