GI SPORTZ, INC. et al v. VALKEN, INC
Filing
134
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying 96 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 8/30/2019. (tf, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
GI SPORTZ, INC. and
GI SPORTZ DIRECT, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
1:16-cv-07170-NLH-KMW
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER
v.
VALKEN, INC.,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
JOHN M. HANAMIRIAN
HANAMIRIAN LAW FIRM PC
40 EAST MAIN STREET
MORRESTOWN, NJ 08057
On behalf of Plaintiffs
ANTHONY J. DIMARINO, III
EMMETT STEPHAN COLLAZO
A.J. DIMARINO, III, PC
41 GROVE STREET
HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033
On behalf of Defendant
HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, before the Court is the motion of Defendant,
Valken, Inc., to consolidate three actions pending between
Defendant and Plaintiff, GI Sportz, Inc. and GI Sportz Direct,
LLC (hereinafter “GI”); and
WHEREAS, the Federal Civil Procedure Rule governing
consolidation of cases provides:
a) Consolidation. If actions before the court involve a
common question of law or fact, the court may:
(1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at
issue in the actions;
(2) consolidate the actions; or
(3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost
or delay.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); and
WHEREAS, Rule 42 supplements the Court’s “inherent power to
control the disposition of cases on its docket with economy of
time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants.”
Liberty Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Mktg. Corp., 149 F.R.D.
65, 80 (D.N.J. 1993) (citations and quotations omitted); and
WHEREAS, the mere existence of common issues does not
automatically require consolidation, but rather the Court must
balance such factors as the interest or efficiency and judicial
economy gained through consolidation, against the delay or
expense that might result from simultaneous disposition of
separate actions, id.; and
WHEREAS, the actions Valken seeks to consolidate are:
1.
This action, 1:16-cv-7170, which concerns Valken’s
alleged infringement of GI’s registered trade dress associated
with GI’s Marballizer paintballs and a breach of a 2014
settlement agreement regarding those paintballs (“Marballizer
case”); and
2.
Action 1:17-cv-05040, which concerns GI’s claims that
Valken’s “Code” branded paintball guns infringes three of GI’s
2
patents and further infringes the trade dress of GI’s Mini and
Axe families of paintball markers (“Code case”); and
3.
Action 1:17-cv-05590, which concerns GI’s claims that
Valken has infringed on GI’s two patents for pneumatic
assemblies for compressed gas operated paintball guns through
Valken’s V12 Airsoft Engine and compressed gas guns using the
V12 Engine (“V12 case”); and
WHEREAS, the Court is familiar with the claims,
counterclaims, and issues involved in each of the three cases,
and has considered the parties’ arguments 1; and
WHEREAS, the Court finds that although the parties are the
same in the three cases and all the matters generally present a
dispute over paintballs and paintball guns, the discrete issues
presented in each case are distinct and do not involve
sufficient commonality to obtain the benefits of consolidation
which are present when two or more cases involve common
questions of law and facts; and
WHEREAS, the Court further finds that the need for
consolidation is reduced because the same magistrate judge –
Judge Karen Williams - is assigned to all three cases, and Judge
Williams has been efficiently and effectively managing the cases
1
GI has opposed Valken’s motion to consolidate.
3
without any delay; and
WHEREAS, the Court further finds that if the cases were
consolidated, the procedural posture of one case could stall the
rest:
In this Marballizer case, currently pending is an appeal
of the magistrate judge’s decision denying Valken’s motion to
amend its counterclaims, as well as Valken’s request to extend
discovery; the Code case is set for a Markman hearing on October
7, 2019; in the V12 case, the Court has already held a Markman
hearing and has issued a claim construction Opinion, but GI now
seeks to amend its infringement contentions, a motion relating
to which was recently filed; and
WHEREAS, the differing procedural postures of the three
cases and the disparate pending motions and issues to be
resolved in each case demonstrate why consolidation would not
result in a more efficient resolution of the cases;
THEREFORE,
IT IS on this
30th
day of
August
, 2019
ORDERED that the MOTION to Consolidate Cases by VALKEN,
INC. [96] be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
At Camden, New Jersey
4
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?