Max Sound Corporation, et al v. Google, Inc., et al

Filing 130

ORDER granting 53 Motion For More Definite Statement. Unless the court orders otherwise, any amended complaint consistent with this order must be filed on or before 12/1/2015. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 11/3/2015. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2015) Modified on 11/3/2015 (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

MAX SOUND CORPORATION,

Case No. 5:14-cv-04412-EJD

Plaintiff,
9

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A
MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

v.
10
11

GOOGLE, INC., et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 53

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff Max Sound Corporation (“Max Sound”) filed a First

14

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against for three defendants: Google, Inc., YouTube, LLC and On2

15

Technologies (the “Google Defendants”), for the infringement of United States Patent No.

16

7,974,339 (the “‘339 patent”). Dkt. No. 23. Plaintiff also, quite unusually, named Vedanti

17

(“Vedanti”), the owner of the ‘339 patent, as a co-plaintiff in the caption of the FAC but alleges

18

later in the document that Vedanti “is listed as a named defendant in the event the court deems

19

[Vedanti] to be a necessary party to this action.” Id. at ¶ 16. It is unclear, however, whether Max

20

Sound actually asserts that Vedanti infringes the ‘339 patent.
In response to the FAC, Vedanti understandably filed the instant motion for a more definite

21
22

statement. Dkt. No. 53. Max Sound filed a response. Dkt. No. 66. Having now fully considered

23

the parties’ briefing, and for the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Vedanti’s motion for a

24

more definite statement.

25
26

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] party may move for a

27

more definite statement of a pleading . . . [when that pleading] is so vague or ambiguous that the

28

1
Case No.: 5:14-cv-04412-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

1

party cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). The decision to grant a

2

motion under Rule 12(e) is within the discretion of the trial court. Griffin v. Cedar Fair, L.P., 817

3

F. Supp. 2d 1152 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Typically, such motions are disfavored in light of the liberal

4

pleading standard, and “should not be granted unless the defendant cannot frame a responsive

5

pleading.” See Falamore, Inc. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc., 525 F. Supp. 940, 949 (E.D. Cal.

6

1981) (citing Boxall v. Sequoia Union High School Dist., 464 F. Supp. 1104, 1114 (N.D. Cal.

7

1979)).
A motion for more definite statement can be granted where the complaint is so general that

8
9

ambiguity arises in determining not only the nature of the claim but even “the parties against
whom it is being made.” True v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 1175, 1180 (C.D.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Cal. 2007) (quoting Sagan v. Apple Computer, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 1072, 1077 (C.D. Cal. 1994)).

12

When that is the case, the court may require details necessary to enhance a complaint’s

13

sufficiency. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F. 3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996)(“[T]he judge may in his

14

discretion, in response to a motion for more definite statement . . . require such detail as may be

15

appropriate in the particular case”). A motion for a more definite statement is also appropriate in

16

cases where the complaint is “prolix” or causes “confusion.” Austin v. Cnty. of Alameda, No. C-

17

15-0942-EMC, 2015 WL 3833239, *4 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2015) (citing McHenry, 84 F. 3d at

18

1179).

19
20

II.

DISCUSSION
Vedanti argues in support of its motion that, if it is to be a defendant in this case, then Max

21

Sound should be required to clearly identify any claims asserted against it so that Vedanti can

22

prepare a response. However, if it is to be an involuntary plaintiff as the FAC’s caption suggests,

23

then Vedanti argues the FAC should be accompanied by a motion under for joinder under Federal

24

Civil Procedure Rule 19(a)(2) and, presumably, that the allegations designating it as a defendant

25

should be removed. Id.

26
27
28

Max Sound counters by arguing that Vedanti has been “named as a defendant since it did
2
Case No.: 5:14-cv-04412-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT

1

not voluntarily appear as a plaintiff in this action.” Max Sound further asserts that Vedanti was

2

originally named as a co-plaintiff, but then renamed as a defendant in response to Google

3

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. More specifically, Max Sound asserts that it is “clear . . . Vedanti

4

[was added] as a defendant for procedural reasons.” Id.

5

Contrary to what Max Sound believes, however, the FAC is far from clear. While the

6

Court recognizes that motions under rule 12(e) are “generally disfavored,” it is axiomatic that

7

Vedanti cannot be expected to respond to a pleading where it is unknown whether it is a plaintiff

8

or defendant and what, if anything, is being asserted against it. As currently pled, the FAC first

9

identifies Vedanti as a plaintiff, but Vedanti apparently did not participate in the initiation of this
lawsuit. It later identifies Vedanti as a defendant, but fails to plausibly assert a patent

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

infringement claim against it - a claim that would be unsupportable in any event because Vedanti

12

is the owner of the ‘339 patent. This contradiction in pleading cannot be reconciled without

13

further clarification from Max Sound. The “procedural reasons” it relies on for justifying the

14

creation of such confusing circumstances is unpersuasive. There are no procedures which permit

15

this type of pleading.

16

III.

CONCLUSION

17

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Movant’s Motion for a More Definite

18

Statement. Unless the court orders otherwise, any amended complaint consistent with this order

19

must be filed on or before December 1, 2015.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: November 3, 2015

23
24

______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

3
Case No.: 5:14-cv-04412-EJD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT