Anza Technology, Inc. v. Hawking Technologies, Inc.
ORDER: (1) Denying 39 Motion to Stay; and (2) Vacating Schedule in Case Management Order. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 6/13/2017. (knb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ANZA TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
Case No.: 3:16-cv-01264-BEN-AGS
HAWKING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
(1) DENYING MOTION TO STAY;
(2) VACATING SCHEDULE IN
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Defendant Hawking Technologies, Inc. (“Hawking”) has brought a motion to stay.
(Mot., ECF No. 39). Plaintiff Anza Technology, Inc. (“Anza”) opposes the motion.
(Opp’n, ECF No. 41). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion but
vacates the schedule in the Case Management Order.
This case is one of several related actions brought by Anza, all of which allege
infringement of the same patents. See 16-cv-1261-BEN-AGS; 16-cv-1263-BEN-AGS;
16-cv-1264-BEN-AGS; 16-cv-1266-BEN-AGS; & 16-cv-1267-BEN-AGS (the “Related
Cases”). The allegations in each of the cases are largely the same. The cases, however,
are at different stages of litigation. While Hawking answered Anza’s Amended
Complaint, Defendants in the other Related Cases filed motions to dismiss. This case
proceeded while the Court reviewed and ruled on the motions to dismiss. On February
22, 2017, Magistrate Judge Schopler issued a Case Management Order scheduling
discovery and other pretrial deadlines. Judge Schopler scheduled an Early Neutral
Evaluation Conference for April 17, 2017, but Hawking failed to appear.
On May 5, 2017, this Court denied the motions to dismiss in the other Related
Cases. Subsequently, Judge Schopler scheduled a global Early Neutral Evaluation and
Case Management Conference for those cases. The global conference will be held on
July 10, 2017. Judge Schopler has proposed a schedule with discovery and pretrial
deadlines approximately three months after the deadlines set in the Hawking case.
Hawking now moves to stay this case until the Court can issue a consolidated
scheduling order for all of the Related Cases.
A district court has inherent power to control its own docket “with economy of
time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.
248, 254 (1936). Given the similarity of the Related Cases, the Court agrees with
Hawking that there may be advantages to delaying the schedule of this case. Aligning the
schedule in the Related Cases may streamline and simplify the issues and reduce
However, the Court declines to enter a stay at this time. Instead, it vacates the
current schedule set forth in the Case Management Order. (ECF No. 30). A limited
suspension of the schedule will not prejudice Plaintiff. Judge Schopler will issue a new
scheduling order after the global Early Neutral Evaluation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 13, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?