T-Mobile USA Inc v. Huawei Device USA Inc et al

Filing 52

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Richard A Jones. The court TERMINATES Huawei Technologies' #50 motion to dismiss. Huawei Technologies shall file nothing further until it enters a notice of appearance. SEE MINUTE ORDER FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTION.(LMK)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

T-MOBILE USA, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

10

12

HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., et al.,

Defendant.

13

The clerk issues the following minute order by the authority of the Honorable

14
15

MINUTE ORDER

v.

11

CASE NO. C14-1351RAJ

Richard A. Jones, United States District Court Judge.
Defendant Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. has filed a motion to dismiss. 1 Dkt.

16
17

# 50. No attorney has entered a notice of appearance on behalf of Huawei Technologies.

18

See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 83.2(a) (specifying methods by which an attorney

19

eligible to appear may enter an appearance in a civil case). No attorney was eligible to

20

file a motion to dismiss on behalf of Huawei Technologies.
The court will strike the motion to dismiss. Ordinarily, the court might permit

21
22

Huawei Technologies to enter a belated notice of appearance without striking the motion

23

it filed in violation of court rules, but other circumstances lead the court to a different

24

conclusion. The motion to dismiss contains several grounds unique to Huawei

25

Technologies. It invokes Rule 12(b)(2), contending that the court lacks personal

26

1

27

Counsel used the court’s electronic filing system to indicate incorrectly that both Defendants
filed the motion to dismiss.

28

MINUTE ORDER – 1

1

jurisdiction over Huawei Technologies. It attacks a claim for tortious interference that

2

applies only to Huawei Technologies. In many other respects, however, the motion is

3

duplicative of a motion to dismiss that the other Defendant, Huawei Device USA, Inc.,

4

filed months ago. It is not identical, to be sure, but many passages are wholly identical,

5

and those portions that are not identical seem to be (at best) attempts to state the same

6

arguments in a slightly different way. The same counsel represents both Defendants.

7

No one benefits from this approach. The court has no need for six briefs making

8

the same arguments, nor does it relish the prospect of rooting through six briefs to discern

9

which portions are actually different. The court has no idea why Huawei Technologies

10

did not simply indicate that it joins in the arguments its United States subsidiary made in

11

its motion to dismiss. That would have been cheaper for Huawei Technologies, simpler

12

for the court, and would not have put Plaintiff through the exercise of responding to the

13

same arguments twice.

14

The court orders as follows:

15

1) The court TERMINATES Huawei Technologies’ motion to dismiss. Dkt.

16
17
18

# 50.
2) Huawei Technologies shall file nothing further until it enters a notice of
appearance.

19

3) If Huawei Technologies enters a notice of appearance and wishes to renew the

20

arguments it made in its motion to dismiss, it shall use one of the following

21

options:

22

a. it shall file a new motion to dismiss that indicates its joinder with

23

arguments made in Huawei Device’s motion to dismiss but does not

24

repeat those arguments; or

25
26
27
28

MINUTE ORDER – 2

1

b. it shall file a motion for leave to file a duplicative motion to dismiss,

2

wherein it explains why the first of these two alternatives is not

3

adequate.

4

Dated this 21st day of April, 2015.

5

WILLIAM M. MCCOOL
Clerk

6

s/Rhonda Stiles
Deputy Clerk

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MINUTE ORDER – 3