Cruise Control Technologies LLC v. Volvo Cars of North America LLC
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING (15 in 1:12-cv-01756-GMS) MOTION to Transfer Case to THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN filed by Ford Motor Company, (14 in 1:12-cv-01762-GMS) MOTION to Transfer Case to Eastern District of Michigan filed by Vo lvo Cars of North America LLC, (19 in 1:13-cv-00087-GMS) MOTION to Transfer Case to Eastern District of Michigan filed by Volkswagen Group of America Inc., (15 in 1:12-cv-01755-GMS) MOTION to Transfer Case to Eastern District of Michigan file d by Chrysler Group LLC, (17 in 1:12-cv-01761-GMS) MOTION to Transfer Case to The Eastern District of Michigan filed by Subaru of America Inc., (14 in 1:13-cv-00086-GMS) MOTION to Transfer Case to Eastern District of Michigan filed by Toy ota Motor North America Inc., (18 in 1:12-cv-01757-GMS) MOTION to Transfer Case to The Eastern District of Michigan Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(A) filed by General Motors LLC, (14 in 1:12-cv-01758-GMS) MOTION to Transfer Case to Easter n District of Michigan filed by Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC, (14 in 1:13-cv-00085-GMS) MOTION to Transfer Case to Eastern District of Michigan filed by Nissan North America Inc. Signed by Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 3/31/2014. Associated Cases: 1:12-cv-01755-GMS et al.(asw) (Main Document 18 replaced on 3/31/2014) (asw). [Transferred from ded on 4/15/2014.]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,
Defendant.
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 12-1755-GMS
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 12-1756-GMS
)
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
)
)
)
)
GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant.
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
)
)
)
)
)
JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA
LLC,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 12-1757-GMS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 12-1758-GMS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 13-0085-GMS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
Civil Action No. 12-1762-GMS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 12-1761-GMS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Civil Action No. 13-0086-GMS
)
)
)
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
2
Plaintiff,
v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 13-0087-GMS
MEMORANDUM
I.
INTRODUCTION
On December 21, 2012, the plaintiff Cruise Control Technologies, LLC ("Cruise Control")
initiated the instant actions each of the above-captioned Defendants ("the Defendants"). (D.I. 1 in
12-1755, 12-1756, 12-1757, 12-1758, 12-1761, 12-1762, 13-0085, 13-0086, and 13-0087.) In each
of its complaints, Cruise Control alleged that the Defendants infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463
("the '463 patent" or "the patent-in-suit") by, among other things, making, using, and selling
vehicular cruise control products that include a "cruise control system for a vehicle having a human
operator." (Id)
Presently before this court are the Defendants' Motions to Transfer each action to the
Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A). (D.I. 15 in 12-1755; D.I. 15 in 121756; D.I. 18 in 12-1757; D.I. 14 in 12-1758; D.I. 17 in 12-1761; D.I. 14 in 12-1762; D.I. 14 in
13-0085; D.I. 14 in 13-0086; D.I. 19 in 13-0087. 1) For the reasons that follow, the court will grant
In three other related cases, the Defendants have filed statements indicating consent to transfer. (See
"Mercedes Benz USA, LLC's Statement of Non-Opposition to Transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan", D.I. 14
in 12-1759; "Porsche Cars North America, Inc. 's Statement of Non-Opposition to Transfer to the Eastern District of
Michigan", D.I. 18 in 12-1760; "Notice of Defendant Hyundai Motor America's Consent to Transfer to the Eastern
District of Michigan", D.I. 16 in 13-0084.) Thus, in all of the cases except one, the Defendants have either moved to
transfer venue to the Eastern District of Michigan or have filed statements consenting to such transfer. Only in one
of the related cases has the Defendant hitherto been silent regarding its amenability to transfer to the Eastern District
of Michigan. America Honda Motor Co., Inc. has yet to take a position on transfer in the nearly one year since the
other Defendants began filing motions to transfer and statements of non-opposition to transfer. (See 13-0082.).
3
the Motions to Transfer.
II.
BACKGROUND
Cruise Control is a Delaware limited liability company that is the owner by assignment of
the '463 patent. (D.I. 1 at ifif 3, 8.) Cruise Control has not disclosed any information about whether
it has a principal place of business, and if so, where this is located. (Id) According to the
Defendants, Cruise Control incorporated in Delaware just four days prior to filing suit against
them. (See, e.g., D.I. 16 in 12-1755.) The Defendants also allege, and Cruise Control does not
deny, that Cruise Control has no offices or factories and does not transact any business at all,
except to bring patent infringement suits. (Id; D.I. 18 in 12-1755.)
All of the nine Defendants are car companies. Of the nine, six of them are incorporated in
Delaware, while three of them are incorporated in states ranging from California to New York to
New Jersey. All of the Defendants maintain either their headquarters or their research and
development facilities in the Eastern District of Michigan. Specifically, Ford Motor Company
("Ford"), Chrysler Group LLC ("Chrysler"), General Motors LLC ("GM") are all incorporated in
Delaware, but have their headquarters in the Eastern District of Michigan. (D.I. 16 in 12-1755 at
3.) Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC ("Jaguar"), Volvo Cars of North America, LLC
("Volvo"), and Subaru of America, Inc. ("Subaru") are also all incorporated in Delaware, but all
three have their principal places of business in New Jersey. (D.I. 1 in 12-1761 at
ir 4; D.I. 16 at
Ex. 3 & 4 in 12-1758.) Nissan North America, Inc. ("Nissan") is incorporated in California and
has its principal research and development center in the Eastern District of Michigan. (D .I. 14 at
2 in 13-0085.) Toyota Motor North America, Inc. ("Toyota") is incorporated in New York with
its principal place of business in New York, but maintains its principal engineering division in the
4
Eastern District of Michigan. (D.I. 14 at 2 in 13-0086.) Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
("Volkswagen") is incorporated in New Jersey with its technical operations located in the Eastern
District of Michigan. (D.I. 20 at 2-3 and D.I. 22 at 3 in 13-0087.)
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest
of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it
might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented."
Consistent with relevant case law, the court employs a two-step inquiry in order to resolve a motion
to transfer. See, e.g., Smart Audio Techs., L.L.C. v. Apple, Inc., 910 F. Supp. 2d 718, 724 (D. Del.
2012). The court first determines "whether the action could have been brought in the proposed
transferee venue". Id; L 'Athene, Inc. v. Earthspring LLC, 570 F. Supp. 2d 588, 591 (D. Del.
2008). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is appropriate in "a judicial district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." The purpose of
substantiality is "preserve the element of fairness so that a defendant is not haled into a remote
district having no real relationship to the dispute." Cottman Transm 'n Sys. v. Martino, 36 F.3d
291, 294 (3d. Cir. 1994). Thus, due to the substantiality requirement, "[e]vents or omissions that
might only have some tangential connection with the dispute in litigation are not enough[]" to
establish that venue is proper in a particular jurisdiction. Id at 294.
After determining whether the action could have been brought in the proposed transferee
venue, the court then decides "whether transfer to a different forum would best serve the interests
of justice and convenience." Smart Audio, 910 F. Supp. 2d at 724. In order to decide whether
transfer would serve the interests of justice and convenience, the Third Circuit has instructed
5
district courts to look to the various private and public interests protected by Section 1404(a) rather
than to any "definitive formula." Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995).
The private interests may include:
[P]laintiffs forum preference as manifested in the original choice;
the defendant's preference; whether the claim arose elsewhere; the
convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and
financial condition; the convenience of the witnesses -- but only to
the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in
one of the fora; and the location of books and records (similarly
limited to the extent that the files could not be produced in the
alternative forum).
Id (citations omitted). The public interests, in tum, may include:
[T]he enforceability of the judgment: practical considerations that
could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; the relative
administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court
congestion; the local interest in deciding local controversies at
home; the public policies of the fora; and the familiarity of the trial
judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases.
Id (citations omitted). Unless the balance of convenience of the parties is strongly in favor
of the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should prevail." Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431
F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970).
IV.
DISCUSSION
Since all of the Defendants contend that venue would be proper in the Eastern District of
Michigan by virtue of their headquarters and/or research and development facilities being located
there, and Cruise Control does not contest this regarding any of the Defendants, the court proceeds
to weigh the Jumara factors.
A.
Private Interest Factors
1.
Parties' Forum Choice
6
The court begins with the private interest factors. Regarding the parties' forum choice, it
is well established that "in ruling on a defendants' motion, the plaintiffs choice of venue should
not be lightly disturbed." Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879; see also Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d
22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970) ("It is black letter law that a plaintiffs choice of a proper forum is a
paramount consideration in any determination of a transfer request. ... ") Cruise Control is
incorporated in Delaware, (See, e.g., D.I. 1 in 12-1755), and thus, its choice of Delaware as a forum
is entitled to the full deference due plaintiffs.
The Defendants argue that Cruise Control is "nothing more than a recently-formed shell
company for enforcing patents" and that "a court should not give deference to a selected forum
when a plaintiffs presence in the forum is simply a litigation tactic." (See, e.g., D.I. 16 at 10 in
12-1755.) While it may be the case that Cruise Control is a non-practicing entity, there is little
basis in the law for the Defendants' argument that such plaintiffs' forum choices should not receive
due consideration and the cases the Defendants cite are inapposite or merely persuasive. Thus, the
court declines to strip the plaintiffs forum choice of the deference due merely because the plaintiff
may have been formed primarily to enforce patent rights. See, e.g., Cradle IP, LLC v. Tex.
Instruments, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 2d 696, 699 (D. Del. 2013) (according the plaintiffs forum choice
full deference, despite the defendant's argument that the plaintiff was "simply a litigation vehicle",
and ruling that "[t]he court declines to treat such non-practicing entities as anything less than
holders of constitutionally protected property rights .... "); Helicos Biosciences Corp. v. Illumina,
Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 367, 373 (D. Del. 2012) ("Despite the defendants' implication that plaintiffs
at bar, patent enforcement companies, should be treated as second-class citizens, the court declines
to disregard the privilege of choosing a venue that has historically been accorded plaintiffs, absent
7
specific authority making such a distinction."). Consequently, although the Defendants' choice of
the Eastern District appears to be a legitimate venue, Cruise Control's forum choice controls. The
court concludes that this factor counsels against transfer.
2.
Where the Claims Arose
Regarding where the claim arose, while patent infringement claims arise wherever
someone has committed acts of infringement, see, e.g., Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences,
Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 376, 381 (D. Del. 2012), "infringement claims have even deeper roots in the
forum where the accused products were developed." Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard
Co., No. 11-400-GMS, 2013 WL 105323, at *4 (D. Del. Jan. 7, 2013); see also Smart Audio Techs.,
910 F. Supp. 2d at 730; Wacoh Co. v. Kionix, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 597, 602 (D. Del. 2012). The
Defendants' arguments in favor of the claim having arose in the Eastern District of Michigan are
convincing. First, as the Defendants point out, all of the Defendants are either headquartered in
the Eastern District of Michigan and/or operate their research and development facilities there.
(D.I. 16 in 12-1755 at 3; D.I. 1 in 12-1761 at ii 4; D.I. 16 at Ex. 3 & 4 in 12-1758; D.I. 14 at 2 in
13-0085; D.I. 14 at 2 in 13-0086; D.I. 20 at 2-3 and D.I. 22 at 3 in 13-0087.) Second, the
Defendants all argue in various ways, (see, e.g., D.I. 16 at 12 in 12-1755), and Cruise Control does
not contest, (see, e.g., D.I. 18 at 10-11 in 12-1755), that their accused products and services were
designed and developed in the Eastern District of Michigan. Third, the Defendants allege, (see,
e.g., D.I. 16 at 12-13 in 12-1755), and Cruise Control again does not deny, (see, e.g., D.I. 18 at 1011 in 12-1755), that no design or development related to the accused products occurred in
Delaware.
Cruise Control's primary argument in support of its stance that the claims at issue arose in
8
Delaware is that the Defendants all import and export automobiles through the Port of Wilmington
or at least sell cars in Delaware. (See, e.g., D.I. 18 at 10-11.) Cruise Control's arguments are
unavailing, however. As Cruise Control itself acknowledges, the Defendants use many ports and
sell in many jurisdictions. (See, e.g., id), Thus, this is not a basis to find that the claims at issue
have a particularly noteworthy connection to Delaware, rather than any of the many other
jurisdictions. Indeed, the crucial inquiry in determining the deeper roots of infringement claims is
where the design and development of the accused products occurred. Linex, 2013 WL 105323 at
*4; Smart Audio Techs., 910 F. Supp. 2d at 730; Wacoh, 845 F. Supp. 2d at 602. Because it is
undisputed that the Eastern District of Michigan is this location for all of the Defendants, the court
concludes that the claims in the instant matter arose in the Eastern District of Michigan. This
strongly weighs in favor of transfer from Delaware.
3.
The Parties' Convenience
In determining which jurisdiction is most convenient for the parties, the court considers:
"(1) the parties' physical location; (2) the associated logistical and operational costs to the parties'
employees in traveling to Delaware (as opposed to the proposed transferee district) for litigation
purposes; and (3) the relative ability of each party to bear these costs in light of its size and financial
wherewithal." Smart Audio, 910 F. Supp. 2d at 731 (citation omitted). As far as physical location
is concerned, none of the Defendants have their headquarters in Delaware. (D.I. 16 in 12-1755 at
3; D.I.
1in12-1761at~4;
D.I. 16 at Ex. 3 & 4 in 12-1758; D.I. 14 at 2 in 13-0085; D.I. 14 at 2 in
13-0086; D.I. 20 at 2-3 and D.I. 22 at 3 in 13-0087.) In contrast to the Defendants, Cruise Control
has provided no information at all regarding its own physical location. (See, e.g., D.I. 1 and D.I.
18 in 12-1755.) It does not deny the Defendants' allegations that it is a non-practicing entity with
9
no offices or factories, however. (See, e.g., D.I. 16 at 6; D.I. 18 at 3-4, 11-13.) Regarding the
costs to the parties' employees in traveling to Delaware, the Defendants allege, (see, e.g., D.I.16
at 14-16 in 12-1755), and Cruise Control does not dispute, (see, e.g., D.I. 18 at 11-13 in 12-1755),
that all of their employees involved in the research and design of the accused products or who
otherwise possess knowledge relevant to the instant litigation are located in the Eastern District of
Michigan. Consistent with its general vagueness regarding its own operations, Cruise Control
alleges that "some of Cruise Control Tech's witnesses and counsel are on the east coast or in
Delaware", but details no facts at all regarding these witnesses' roles or capacities that would
permit the court to evaluate their relevance and importance. (See, e.g., D.I. 18 at 13 in 12-1755.)
The convenience factor that most favors Cruise Control is the relative finances of the parties.
Cruise Control makes much of the Defendants' greater financial ability to bear any costs related
to travel, [citation], and the Defendants resources can reasonably be deemed vast considering the
national and international scope of their operations. The fact that the Defendants possess vast
resources, however, does not mean that the court should follow an approach that would
unnecessarily waste these resources.
Ultimately, while the court does not seek to give short shrift to the inconvenience to Cruise
Control of being compelled to litigate outside the forum it has chosen, the court must "account for
the absolute costs likely to flow from its transfer decision." ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
No. 11-1050-GMS, 2013 WL 828220, *5 (D. Del. Mar. 6, 2013). The locations of the Defendants
and their employees suggest that allowing this litigation to proceed in the Eastern District of
Michigan would cabin costs. In the absence of concrete facts establishing that Delaware would be
more convenient for Cruise Control and any of its material witnesses, the court concludes that the
IO
convenience of the parties counsels in favor of transfer.
4.
The Witnesses' Convenience
As far as the witnesses' convenience is concerned, the available facts favor transfer. As
discussed above, it is not disputed that the Defendants' employees who are capable of testifying
regarding design and research of the accused products are located outside of this court's subpoena
power in the Eastern District of Michigan. (See, e.g., D.I. 16 at 15-16 in 12-1755.) The Defendants
also contend that there are third party witnesses, such as suppliers, that are outside the Defendants'
control and located in the Eastern District of Michigan. (See, e.g., id.; D.I. 14 in 13-0086.)
Contrary to Cruise Control's arguments, the unavailability of witnesses in this jurisdiction
combined with inconvenience to third party witnesses is sufficient to establish that the witnesses'
convenience favors transfer. See Linex Technologies, 2013 WL 105323, at *5 ("It is enough that
likely witnesses reside beyond the court's subpoena power and there is reason to believe those
witnesses will refuse to testify absent a subpoena."); Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc., No. 11902-LPS-CJB, 2012 WL 4889438, at * 10-11 (D. Del. Oct. 15, 2012) (finding inconvenience to
third party witnesses weighed in favor of transfer).
5.
The Location of Books and Records
The location of books and records factor is neutral since this factor is relevant only where
the Defendants show that there are books and records that cannot be transported or transmitted to
Delaware. See ADE Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., 138 F. Supp. 2d 565, 571 (D. Del. 2001);
Affymetrix, Inc. v. Synteni, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 2d 192, 205 (D. Del. 1998). The Defendants have not
made any such showing here.
B.
Public Interest Factors
11
r
l
I
Having considered the private interest factors, the court proceeds to the public interest
factors. The court concludes that practical considerations and the administrative difficulty of the
two fora further indicate that this litigation should be transferred to the Eastern District of
Michigan. 2
1.
Practical Considerations
Regarding the practical considerations, as discussed above, the accused products were
developed and designed at the Defendants' premises in the Eastern District of Michigan.
Consequently, this action has significant connections to that jurisdiction. Cruise Control argues
that Delaware has an interest in this matter because some of the Defendants are incorporated there.
(D.I. 18 at 17-18 in 12-1755.) Cruise Control downplays, however, the fact that some of the
Defendants are not incorporated in Delaware. In addition, even regarding those Defendants who
are incorporated in Delaware, the Eastern District of Michigan still has a stronger interest to this
litigation because it is where the claims arose and where the employees and known material
witnesses are located. See, e.g., McRo, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-1508LPS-CJB, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178823, at *50 (D. Del. Dec. 13, 2013) (Concluding that
Delaware's ordinarily strong interest in a dispute between Delaware corporations was
counterbalanced by the parties' headquarters being located elsewhere.); In re Hoffmann-La Roche
Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("[I]f there are significant connections between a
particular venue and the events that gave rise to a suit, this factor should be weighed in that venue's
favor.")
The remaining public interest factors are neutral or not relevant.
12
The fact that all, except one, of the other Defendants are seeking transfer also weighs in
favor of transferring the instant actions to the Eastern District of Michigan. There are 13 related
actions currently pending before this court in the instant litigation. 3 (See 12-1755; 12-1756; 121757; 12-1758; 12-1759; 12-1760; 12-1761; 12-1762; 13-0082; 13-0084; 13-0085; 13-0086; 130087.) In nine of the cases, the Defendants are seeking transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan.
In three of the cases, the Defendants have filed statements indicating they consent to their cases
being transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan. (See D.I. 14 in 12-1759; D.I. 18 in 12-1760;
D.I. 16 in 13-0084.) The only defendant that has yet to file a motion to transfer or a statement of
non-opposition does not oppose transfer and has instead merely been silent. (13-0082.) With 12
of 13 defendants seeking or consenting to transfer, and one defendant being silent on the matter,
Cruise Control's assertion that granting the motions to transfer will result in piecemeal or
duplicative litigation is dubious at best. In fact, the efficiency and ease of litigation that Cruise
Control claims weigh in favor of keeping all of the cases in Delaware are equally served by
transferring all of the cases to the Eastern District of Michigan.
2.
Administrative Difficulty of the Two Fora
As some of the Defendants point out, Delaware courts' dockets are far more congested on
average than those of courts in the Eastern District of Michigan. (See, e.g., D.I. 14 at 3 in 12-1758
(Observing that "Delaware had a total of 809 new patent cases filed in the year ending September
2012 (four District Judges) whereas Michigan had 55 (twenty-two District Judges).")
Furthermore, the median time required to resolve a civil case from filing of the complaint to
Apart from these nine cases that are currently pending, litigation in two other related cases has ceased due to
voluntary dismissal by Cruise Control. (See D.I. 12 in 12-1753; D.I. 19 in 12-1754.)
13
completion of the jury trial that Cruise Control has requested in the instant case was 34.5 months
in Delaware in 2012, compared to 28.0 months in the Eastern District of Michigan. (Id at 2-3.)
In addition, Delaware is one of the busiest patent jurisdictions in the nation. All of these facts
weigh in favor of transfer.
V.
CONCLUSION
Considering the Jumara factors as a whole, the court believes that the Defendants have met
their burden of demonstrating that the interests of justice and convenience strongly favor transfer.
Thus, the court will grant the Defendants' Motions to Transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A).
Dated: March
JJ_, 2014
14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 12-1755-GMS
)
CHRYSLER GROUP LLC,
Defendant.
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant.
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 12-1756-GMS
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 12-1757-GMS
)
GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant.
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA
LLC,
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
Civil Action No. 12-1758-GMS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
V.
TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 12-1761-GMS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 12-1762-GMS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Civil Action No. 13-0085-GMS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 13-0086-GMS
)
)
)
CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
16
I
I
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
Civil Action No. 13-0087-GMS
)
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
ORDER
-.'{"
At Wilmington, this
31_ day of March, 2014, consistent with the Memorandum '
issued this same date, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendants' Defendants' Motions to Transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) (D.I. 15 in 12-1755; D.I. 15 in 12-1756; D.I. 18 in 121757; D.I. 14 in 12-1758; D.I. 17 in 12-1761; D.I. 14 in 12-1762; D.I. 14 in 13-0085; D.I.
14 in 13-0086; D.I. 19 in 13-0087) are GRANTED; and
2. Civil Action Nos. 12-1755-GMS; 12-1756-GMS; 12-1757-GMS; 12-1758-GMS; 121759-GMS; 12-1760-GMS; 12-1761-GMS; 12-1762-GMS; 13-0082-GMS; 13-0084GMS; 13-0085-GMS; 13-0086-GMS; 13-0087-GMS are transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
17
l
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?