Power Integrations, Inc. v. Silanna Semiconductor North America, Inc. et al

Filing 53

*** POSTED IN ERROR *** please see 54 ORDER re 52 Notice of Withdrawal of Motion to Dismiss filed by Charles Reyes Evangelista, Edison D. De Lara, Alex F. Mariano, Ian B. Barrameda. Motion to transfer venue due by 1/17/20. Signed by Judge Susan van Keulen on 12/12/19. (svklc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2019) Modified on 12/12/2019 (cv, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

EDISON D. DE LARA, et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 19-cv-02700-SVK
ORDER REGARDING INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF
WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION TO
DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 30, 52

12
13

On July 30, 2019, Defendants Edison D. De Lara, Charles Reyes Evangelista, Ian

14

Barrameda, and Alex F. Mariano II (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”) filed a motion to

15

dismiss the first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3)

16

(improper venue) and/or 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim). Dkt. 30.1 On November 1, 2019, the

17

Court issued an order on Individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss, which set deadlines for

18

discovery and further briefing on venue-related issues. Dkt. 48. Because venue is a threshold

19

issue, the Court deferred a ruling on the Individual Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) arguments. Id. at 3.

20

Now before the Court is the Individual Defendants’ Notice of Withdrawal of Motion, in which

21

they request to (1) withdraw their Rule 12(b)(3) motion for improper venue (Dkt. 30), (2) vacate

22

the venue discovery/briefing order (Dkt. 48), and (3) defer a ruling on the still-pending motion to

23

dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 30) until after the Court decides a

24

forthcoming motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Dkt. 52.
Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Individual Defendants’ requests, as

25
26
27
28

The Individual Defendants’ motion to dismiss was also brought on behalf of Stuart Hodge, Jr.,
who was originally named as a Defendant, but PI voluntarily dismissed Hodge before it filed an
opposition to the motion. Dkt. 32.
1

1

follows: The motion to dismiss (Dkt. 30) is TERMINATED insofar as it relates to Individual

2

Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(3) argument that venue is improper, and all deadlines associated with

3

venue-related discovery and supplemental briefing (Dkt. 48) are VACATED. The Court will

4

defer a ruling on the motion to dismiss (Dkt. 30) insofar as it argues for dismissal pursuant to Rule

5

12(b)(6) pending a ruling on Individual Defendants’ forthcoming motion to transfer venue

6

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Individual Defendants are ordered to file any motion to transfer

7

venue no later than January 17, 2000.

8
9

SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 12, 2019

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2