Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium US LP et al

Filing 56

STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d filed byMobileStar Technologies LLC, Rockstar Consortium US LP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Order Denying Motion to Consolidate Cases, # 2 Exhibit B - Order Denying Motion to Transfer, # 3 Exhibit C - Order Granting Motion to Stay)(Related document(s) 20 ) (Budwin, Joshua) (Filed on 4/17/2014)

Exhibit C

Case3:14-cv-00498-WHA Document42 Filed04/15/14 Page1 of 2

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8

GOOGLE, INC.,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C 14-00498 WHA

CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.,

12

Defendant.

13

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO STAY
/

14

Three pending actions are relevant to this order: (1) Contentguard Holdings, Inc. v.

15

Amazon.com, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-01112-JRG (E.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2013) (Judge Rodney

16

Gilstrap) (“Amazon action”); (2) Google, Inc. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-

17

00498-WHA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014) (Judge William Alsup) (this action); and

18

(3) ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.

19

Feb. 5, 2014) (Judge Rodney Gilstrap) (“Google Texas action”).

20

In this action, in March 2014, defendant ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. moved to stay,

21

transfer, or dismiss this action in light of the actions pending in the Eastern District of Texas.

22

Google opposed, arguing, inter alia, that this action was the first-filed action and the customer-

23

suit exception applied. A March 2014 order held in abeyance ContentGuard’s fully-briefed

24

motion to allow our sister district to rule on the motions pending there.

25

On April 15, Judge Gilstrap denied Google’s motion to stay, denied ContentGuard’s

26

motion to consolidate the Amazon action and the Google Texas action, and held in abeyance

27

Motorola Mobility, LLC’s motion to sever (Dkt. No. 109). Judge Gilstrap deemed the Amazon

28

action first-filed and found that the customer-suit exception did not apply.

Case3:14-cv-00498-WHA Document42 Filed04/15/14 Page2 of 2

1

Having considered Judge Gilstrap’s twelve-page order, the interests of comity and

2

judicial efficiency, and ContentGuard’s motion herein, this action is STAYED. The case

3

management conference set for May 1 is VACATED. If anything changes materially, either side

4

may seek relief from the stay.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: April 15, 2014.

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