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)

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