Sprint Solutions, Inc. et al v. Snyder et al

Filing 63

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS. On or before 6/15/2016, each party shall file a brief written response, not exceeding three pages in length, which addresses the court's proposal. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 6/8/2016. (ejdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,

Case No. 5:15-cv-02439-EJD

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 26

9
10

JOHN RUSSELL SNYDER, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiff Sprint Solutions, Inc. (“Sprint”) brings this action against John Russell Snyder

13

and Thirty-One Echo, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging injuries arising from the unlawful

14

and unauthorized purchasing and reselling of Sprint wireless telephones.

15

In a motion challenging Sprint’s pleading, Defendants have moved, inter alia, to dismiss

16

all of Sprint’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 26. Defendants argue

17

dismissal is necessary because the parties “contractually waived” the subject matter jurisdiction of

18

this court pursuant to an agreement providing that disputes be submitted to a dispute resolution

19

process. In response to this argument, Sprint indicates that it does not oppose staying the claims

20

asserted in this action - save for the claim for injunctive relief - so that the parties may engage in

21

the contractual dispute resolution process.

22

Although not explicit, the parties’ arguments suggest recognition that (1) an agreement

23

exists between Sprint and Defendants that requires the submission of claims to dispute resolution,

24

and (2) that most of Sprint’s claims are subject to that agreement. Accordingly, it appears to the

25

court that an efficient resolution may be the one proposed by Sprint: the entry of an order

26

compelling the parties to participate in the contractual dispute resolution process as to certain

27

claims, and staying those claims during that process.

28

1
Case No.: 5:15-cv-02439-EJD
ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

1
2

Accordingly, on or before June 15, 2016, each party shall file a brief written response, not
exceeding three pages in length, which addresses the court’s proposal.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 8, 2016
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 5:15-cv-02439-EJD
ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS