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).
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?