Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited et al

Filing 377

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 360 ; denying as moot 260 Motion to Dismiss ; denying as moot 275 Motion for Leave to File; granting 236 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon on 3/8/2018. (nmfn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 15-634-JFB-SRF

TCL COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY
HOLDINGS LIMITED, a Chinese
Corporation, TCT MOBILE -LIMITED, a
Hong Kong Corporation, TCT MOBILE
(US), INC., a Delaware Corporation, and
TCT MOBILE, INC., a Delaware
Corporation,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendants.

This matter is before the court on the Report and Recommendation (D.I. 360) of
the Magistrate Judge on (1) plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1's ("IP Bridge") motion to
dismiss TCT Mobile (US), Inc. and TCT Mobile, lnc.'s (together, "TCT") amended
counterclaims or, in the alternative, to strike the improper joinder of Panasonic
Corporation ("Panasonic"), D.I. 236; (2) counterclaim-defendant Panasonic's motion to
dismiss TCT's amended counterclaims, or, in the alternative, to strike the improper
joinder of Panasonic, D.I. 260; and (3) TCT's motion for leave to file a surreply in
opposition to Panasonic’s motion to dismiss the amended counterclaims, D.I. 275.
The Magistrate Judge found that defendant TCT failed, for a second time, to
allege facts sufficient to support its claims under the Sherman Act. She recommends
dismissing TCT’s antitrust claim with prejudice, finding that amendment would be futile.
No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed.

The Supreme Court has construed the statutory grant of authority conferred on
magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. § 636 to mean that nondispositive pretrial matters
are governed by § 636(b)(1)(A) and dispositive matters are covered by § 636(b)(1)(B).
Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 873-74 (1989); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Under subparagraph (B), a district court may refer a dispositive motion to a magistrate
judge “to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of
the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B); see EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99–100 (3d Cir. 2017).
The product of a magistrate judge, following a referral of a dispositive matter, is often
called a “report and recommendation.” Id. “Parties ‘may serve and file specific written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations’ within 14 days of being
served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.” Id. (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)).
“If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’” EEOC,
866 F.3d at 99 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). If a party does not object timely to a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the party may lose its right to de novo
review by the district court. Id. However, “because a district court must take some
action for a report and recommendation to become a final order and because ‘[t]he
authority and the responsibility to make an informed, final determination . . . remains
with the judge,’ even absent objections to the report and recommendation, a district
court should ‘afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the

2

report.’” Id. (quoting Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 271 (1976) and Henderson v.
Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)). The district court must give “reasoned
consideration” to the report and recommendation. Id. at 100.
The court has conducted given reasoned consideration to the report and
recommendation and finds that it should be adopted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

The report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (D.I. 360) is

adopted.
2.

Plaintiff IP Bridge's motion to dismiss the amended counterclaims with

prejudice and to strike the improper joinder of Panasonic (D.I. 236) is granted.
3.

Panasonic's motion to dismiss (D.I. 260) and TCT's motion for leave to file

a sur-reply in opposition to Panasonic's motion (D.I. 275) are denied as moot.
DATED this 8th day of March, 2018.

BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge

3