EIT Holdings, LLC v. Linkedin Corporation

Filing 6

ORDER FINDING CASES TO BE UNRELATED, Order by Hon. William Alsup denying 5 Motion to Relate Case.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 EIT HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware company, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiff, No. C 11-02463 JCS No. C 11-02465 PSG No. C 11-02466 HRL No. C 11-02468 MEJ No. C 11-02469 JCS No. C 11-02471 EDL No. C 11-02472 HRL 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. C 10-05623 WHA v. YELP! INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. / ORDER FINDING CASES TO BE UNRELATED Plaintiff accuses multiple companies of infringing two of its patents. Plaintiff named nine 18 defendants in one patent-infringement action in this district (No. C 10-05623 WHA). After the 19 parties were invited to brief the issue of possible misjoinder, one defendant was voluntarily 20 dismissed and seven defendants were dismissed for misjoinder (Dkt. Nos. 80, 83, 86). The order 21 dismissing all but the first-named defendant stated: “Given the disparity in defendants, websites, 22 and other disparate issues discussed herein like damages, willfulness, and discovery supervision, 23 it is worth adding that the allegations against each defendant would not be related under our civil 24 local rules even if brought here as separate actions.” (Dkt. No. 86 at 4). 25 Plaintiff subsequently filed separate actions against each of the seven defendants that were 26 dismissed for misjoinder. Plaintiff now moves for consideration whether each of those seven 27 actions should be related to the original action pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12. In light of the 28 above statement in the order of dismissal, plaintiff seeks a formalized holding that the cases are 1 unrelated (Dkt. Nos. 90–96 at 5). Plaintiff notes that the allegations and claimed relief in the new 2 actions are identical to those originally brought in the first-filed action (id. at 2). No oppositions 3 were filed. For the same reasons stated in the dismissal order, this order finds that none of the 4 seven new actions is related to the first-filed action. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: June 1, 2011. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?