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