Simpson Performance Products, Inc. v. NecksGen Inc.

Filing 29

ORDER Denying Defendant's 16 Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 9/7/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 SIMPSON PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC., 15 16 17 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No.: 3:17-cv-01704-BEN-MDD v. NECKSGEN INC., Defendant. On August 24, 2016, Plaintiff Simpson Performance Products, Inc. (“Simpson”) 18 filed its initial Complaint in the Western District of North Carolina. (Docket No. 1.) In 19 response, Defendant NecksGen, Inc. (“NecksGen”) filed a motion to dismiss. Within 21 20 days of the filing of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Simpson filed an Amended 21 Complaint (“AC”). (Docket No. 12.) Thereafter, NecksGen sought leave to file a motion 22 to dismiss Plaintiff’s AC, which was granted by Magistrate Judge David Keesler. 23 (Docket Nos. 14-15.) Magistrate Judge Keesler also recommended that Judge Richard 24 Voorhees deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss the initial complaint as moot. (Docket No. 25 15.) On January 25, 2017, NecksGen filed its second motion to dismiss the AC, to which 26 Plaintiff filed its opposition, and NecksGen filed a reply. (Docket Nos. 16-18.) 27 28 On June 6, 2017, while both motions to dismiss were pending, NecksGen filed a third motion to dismiss for improper venue in light of the May 22, 2017 Supreme Court 1 3:17-cv-01704-BEN-MDD 1 opinion in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017). 2 On August 23, 2017, Judge Voorhees denied NecksGen’s first motion to dismiss as moot, 3 granted NecksGen’s third motion to dismiss for improper venue, and transferred the 4 action to this District. (Docket Nos. 25-6.) 5 The case was initially assigned to Judge William Q. Hayes. (Docket Nos. 27.) On 6 August 29, 2017, Judge Hayes declined assignment pursuant to General Order 598, and 7 the case was reassigned to this Court. (Docket No. 28.) Now pending before this Court 8 is NecksGen’s second motion to dismiss the AC. (Docket No. 16.) A review of the 9 parties’ briefings indicates the interests of justice and judicial economy would benefit 10 from a re-briefing of the issues according to the appropriate authorities in light of the 11 transfer of this case between districts. 12 Therefore, NecksGen’s motion to dismiss the AC is DENIED without prejudice. 13 NecksGen shall file its answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s AC on or before 14 September 22, 2017. If NecksGen elects to file a motion to dismiss, Simpson shall file 15 its opposition on or before October 6, 2017, NecksGen’s reply shall be due on or 16 before October 13, 2017, and the Clerk of the Court shall schedule a hearing on this 17 motion for October 23, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. The parties are further ordered to comply 18 with the Civil Local Rules for the Southern District of California. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: September 7, 2017 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 3:17-cv-01704-BEN-MDD

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?