AEVOE CORP. v. AE Tech Co., Ltd.

Filing 529

ORDER Denying as moot 409 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment of False Marking and Denying as moot 439 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 04/14/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

AEVOE CORP., a California corporation,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
AE TECH CO., LTD., a Taiwan corporation; )
S&F Corporation dba SF PLANET
)
CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, )
and GREATSHIELD INC., a Minnesota
)
corporation,
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-00053-GMN-NJK
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment of False Marking (ECF

11
12

No. 409) filed by Defendants AE Tech Co. Ltd, S&F Corporation and GreatShield Inc.

13

(collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff Aevoe Corp. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response (ECF No.

14

453) and Defendants filed a Reply (ECF No. 467).
Also pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Motion for

15
16

Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 439.) Defendants filed a Response (ECF No. 460) and Plaintiff

17

filed a Reply (ECF No. 464).

18

I.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

19

After Defendants filed the instant motion, the Court dismissed Defendants’ False

20

Marking Counterclaim with prejudice. (See Order on Mot. to Dismiss 4:8–7:19, ECF No. 512.)

21

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of False Marking is hereby DENIED

22

as MOOT.

23

II.

24
25

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
Plaintiff requests that the Court strike Defendants’ two motions for summary judgment

(ECF Nos. 409, 425) because these two motions collectively number forty-two pages, in

Page 1 of 2

1

violation of the thirty page limit found in Local Rule 7-4. (Mot. to Strike 2:12–16, ECF No.

2

439.) Because the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of False

3

Marking (ECF No. 409) is MOOT, the Court finds that Defendants’ remaining Motion for

4

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 425) complies with the thirty page limit of Local Rule 7-4.

5

Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is also MOOT.

6

III.

7
8
9
10
11

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of False

Marking (ECF No. 409) is DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 439) is
DENIED as MOOT.
DATED this _____ day of April, 2014.
14

12
13
14

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2