Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle International Corporation
Filing
303
ORDER denying without prejudice Counter-Defendants' ECF No. 190 Motion to Dismiss; giving Counter-Claimants 10 days to file an amended counterclaim. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 10/14/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada Corporation;
10
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:14-cv-1699-LRH-PAL
11
v.
12
13
14
15
16
17
ORDER
ORACLE INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, a California corporation,
Defendant.
______________________________________
ORACLE AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and ORACLE INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION,
18
Counter-claimants,
19
v.
20
21
RIMINI STREET, INC.; and SETH RAVIN, an
individual,
22
Counter-defendants.
23
24
Before the court is counter-defendants Rimini Street, Inc. (“Rimini Street”) and Seth
25
Ravin’s (“Ravin”) motion to dismiss counterclaim. ECF No. 190. Counter-claimants Oracle
26
America, Inc. and Oracle International Corporation (collectively “Oracle”) filed an opposition
27
and request to amend counterclaims (ECF No. 206) to which counter-defendants replied
28
(ECF No. 211).
1
I.
Facts and Procedural Background
Defendant/counter-claimant Oracle develops and licenses intellectual property related to
2
3
computer software and provides related services. Plaintiff/counter-defendant Rimini Street is a
4
company that provides third-party maintenance and support services to companies that license
5
Oracle’s software applications. Counter-defendant Ravin is the owner and CEO of Rimini Street.
This is the second action between these parties in this district. In the first action, Oracle
6
7
USA., Inc.; et al. v. Rimini Street, Inc,; et al., case no. 2:10-cv-0106-LRH-PAL (“Oracle”),
8
Oracle brought several claims against Rimini Street and Ravin for copyright infringement and
9
other business related torts based on a software support service process Rimini Street used to
10
provide support services to customers who had licensed Oracle software.
While Oracle was proceeding, Rimini Street allegedly changed the process by which it
11
12
serviced customers who had licensed Oracle software. Subsequently, on October 15, 2014,
13
Rimini Street initiated the present action for declaratory relief seeking a declaration from the
14
court that its new process, enacted after July 31, 2014, does not infringe Oracle’s software
15
copyrights. See ECF No. 1. In response, Oracle filed an answer in which it alleged various
16
counterclaims against counter-defendants, including a claim for copyright infringement for
17
Rimini Street’s new support service model. ECF No. 21. Subsequently, Oracle filed amended
18
counterclaims. ECF No. 173. Thereafter, counter-defendants filed the present motion to dismiss
19
Oracle’s first counterclaim for copyright infringement as it relates to Oracle’s E-Business Suite
20
copyrighted software. ECF No. 190.
21
II.
22
Discussion
In their motion, counter-defendants contend that Oracle has failed to specifically allege
23
how they infringed Oracle’s E-Business Suite copyrighted software and, instead, only alleges
24
bare and conclusory allegations that counter-defendants engaged in general copyright
25
infringement. In opposition, Oracle has requested leave to amend its counterclaims to add
26
additional supporting allegations to this claim. See ECF No. 206.
27
A party may amend its pleadings after a responsive pleading has been filed by leave of
28
court. FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2). Leave of court to amend should be freely given when justice so
1
requires and when there is no undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on the part of the moving
2
party. See Wright v. Incline Village General Imp. Dist., 597 F.Supp.2d 1191 (D. Nev. 2009);
3
DCD Programs, LTD v. Leighton, 883 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, the court finds there is no
4
undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on behalf of Oracle in requesting leave to amend.
5
Further, the court finds that this matter is still early in litigation and counter-defendants would
6
not be prejudiced by allowing amendment. Accordingly, the court shall deny counter-defendants’
7
motion and grant Oracle leave to amend its counterclaims.
8
9
10
11
12
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that counter-defendants’ motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 190) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counter-claimants shall have ten (10) days after entry
of this order to file an amended counterclaim.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
DATED this 14th day of October, 2016.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?