Viper Networks, Inc v. Rates Technology, Inc

Filing 54

ORDER Granting 44 Ex Parte Motion to Stay: The action is stayed except for RTIs motions to transfer venue, for summary judgment and for Rule 11 sanctions. The stay will be lifted, if necessary, upon the filing of the Courts Order addressing RTIs motions. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 7/17/2009. (mjj) (jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 VIPER NETWORKS, INC., 12 13 v. 14 RATES TECHNOLOGY INC., 15 Defendant. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 09cv768 L(RBB) ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION TO STAY [doc. #44] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16 _________________________________ 17 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 18 19

Defendant Rates Technology Inc.'s ("RTI" or "defendant") seeks a stay of certain

20 portions of this action pending determination of its motions, i.e., defendants' motions for change 21 of venue, for summary judgment and for sanctions under Rule 11. [doc. #15, 42, 43] Plaintiffs 22 oppose a stay. The motion has been fully briefed and is considered without oral argument. 23 RTI's motion is based on the following facts: RTI's motion for change of venue has been

24 fully briefed but its motion for summary judgment, scheduled for hearing on September 8, 2009, 25 has been filed but plaintiff's opposition to that motion is not due until 14 calendar days prior to 26 the noticed hearing. See CIV. L.R. 7.1(e)(2). Between now and the September 8, 2009 hearing 27 date, RTI contends discovery will be going forward in this document-intensive case if a stay is 28 not granted. As a result, there will be a significant increase in the costs and fees for both parties
09cv768

1 in the interim. 2 RTI also argues that its motion for summary judgment is based on a single, discrete issue

3 that would be dispositive of the entire case, i.e., whether Viper has the legal capacity to sue in 4 California. Therefore, any additional expenditure of time and money prior to the Court's 5 decision of the motions for change of venue and summary judgment would be unnecessary and 6 wasteful. 7 On the other hand, Viper contends that RTI's ex parte motion "is nothing more than

8 RTI's attempt to avoid the Court's July 6, 2009 deadline for RTI to submit its Disclosure of 9 Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions." (Opp. at 2.) Viper also asserts 10 that RTI is seeking a tactical advantage through this motion by preventing Viper from obtaining 11 certain information from RTI. But Viper appears to acknowledge that RTI's disclosure "may not 12 be necessary in order to prevail, Viper could rely on the information produced by RTI in the July 13 6 disclosures in opposing that motion [for Rule 11 sanction]." Viper has failed to make any 14 showing that the disclosure of RTI's asserted claims and preliminary infringement contentions is 15 actually necessary in order to respond to any of RTI's motions. In the absence of such a 16 showing, the Court finds that a stay of certain proceedings is in the interest of justice. 17 Based on the foregoing, RTI's ex parte motion to stay is GRANTED. The action is

18 stayed except for RTI's motions to transfer venue, for summary judgment and for Rule 11 19 sanctions. The stay will be lifted, if necessary, upon the filing of the Court's Order addressing 20 RTI's motions. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 DATED: July 17, 2009 23 24 25 COPY TO: 26 HON. RUBEN B. BROOKS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL
2
09cv768

M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3
09cv768