Anza Technology, Inc. v. Hawking Technologies, Inc.

Filing 46

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANZA TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Case No.: 3:16-cv-01264-BEN-AGS
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER:

HAWKING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

15

(1) DENYING MOTION TO STAY;
and

Defendant.
(2) VACATING SCHEDULE IN
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

16
17
18

Defendant Hawking Technologies, Inc. (“Hawking”) has brought a motion to stay.

19

(Mot., ECF No. 39). Plaintiff Anza Technology, Inc. (“Anza”) opposes the motion.

20

(Opp’n, ECF No. 41). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion but

21

vacates the schedule in the Case Management Order.

22
23

BACKGROUND
This case is one of several related actions brought by Anza, all of which allege

24

infringement of the same patents. See 16-cv-1261-BEN-AGS; 16-cv-1263-BEN-AGS;

25

16-cv-1264-BEN-AGS; 16-cv-1266-BEN-AGS; & 16-cv-1267-BEN-AGS (the “Related

26

Cases”). The allegations in each of the cases are largely the same. The cases, however,

27

are at different stages of litigation. While Hawking answered Anza’s Amended

28

Complaint, Defendants in the other Related Cases filed motions to dismiss. This case
1
3:16-cv-01264-BEN-AGS

1

proceeded while the Court reviewed and ruled on the motions to dismiss. On February

2

22, 2017, Magistrate Judge Schopler issued a Case Management Order scheduling

3

discovery and other pretrial deadlines. Judge Schopler scheduled an Early Neutral

4

Evaluation Conference for April 17, 2017, but Hawking failed to appear.

5

On May 5, 2017, this Court denied the motions to dismiss in the other Related

6

Cases. Subsequently, Judge Schopler scheduled a global Early Neutral Evaluation and

7

Case Management Conference for those cases. The global conference will be held on

8

July 10, 2017. Judge Schopler has proposed a schedule with discovery and pretrial

9

deadlines approximately three months after the deadlines set in the Hawking case.

10
11

Hawking now moves to stay this case until the Court can issue a consolidated
scheduling order for all of the Related Cases.

12
13

DISCUSSION
A district court has inherent power to control its own docket “with economy of

14

time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.

15

248, 254 (1936). Given the similarity of the Related Cases, the Court agrees with

16

Hawking that there may be advantages to delaying the schedule of this case. Aligning the

17

schedule in the Related Cases may streamline and simplify the issues and reduce

18

duplicative litigation.

19

However, the Court declines to enter a stay at this time. Instead, it vacates the

20

current schedule set forth in the Case Management Order. (ECF No. 30). A limited

21

suspension of the schedule will not prejudice Plaintiff. Judge Schopler will issue a new

22

scheduling order after the global Early Neutral Evaluation.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 13, 2017

25
26
27
28
2
3:16-cv-01264-BEN-AGS