From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aerielle Techs. Inc. v. Belkin Int'l

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 17, 2011
Case No.: 10-CV-01301-LHK (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2011)

Opinion

Case No.: 10-CV-01301-LHK

11-17-2011

AERIELLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, ET AL., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR HEARING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PLAINTIFF

(re: dkt. #145)

On October 25, 2011, Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Aerielle Technologies, Inc. ("Aerielle" or "Plaintiff) simultaneously filed a Motion to Substitute Party and an Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time for Hearing on that Motion. See ECF Nos. 145, 146. In its Ex Parte Application, Plaintiff asks this Court to deem Aerielle's Motion to Substitute Party filed as of October 25, 2011 and to set it for hearing on November 22, 2011, the same day as a further case management conference scheduled in this case, rather than on February 2, 2012, the next available hearing date as of the time Aerielle filed its Ex Parte Application.

Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Belkin International, Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy.com, LLC, Best Buy Stores, L.P., and RadioShack Corporation (collectively "Defendants") filed a response on October 31, 2011, opposing Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application. Defendants oppose principally on grounds that Plaintiff's failure to timely produce documents relevant to the assignments of rights in the two patents-in-suit renders the proposed expedited briefing schedule on Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute Party "unrealistic and prejudicial to Defendants." ECF No. 150. On September 21, 2011, after Plaintiff informed the Court that it had assigned its intellectual property rights in the two patents-in-suit to a creditor named "Great American Life" or "Great American Insurance," the Court ordered Plaintiff to produce all documents relevant to the assignment by September 28, 2011. See ECF No. 138. Defendants assert that Plaintiff produced over 1,200 pages of ownership-related documents on October 21, 2011, nearly a month after the Court-ordered deadline, and just shortly before filing its Ex Parte Application and Motion to Substitute Party. ECF No. 150 at 4. Furthermore, Defendants provide evidence that Plaintiff's production of relevant documents remained incomplete even at the time of filing its Motion. Id. Ex. A.

Had Plaintiff fully complied with the Court's September 21, 2011 Order, it could have moved to substitute plaintiff much sooner. Instead, it waited until October 25, 2011 to file its motion, and now asks the Court for an expedited hearing. The Court finds that Plaintiff has exhibited a pattern of not being forthcoming regarding the assignment of rights, a matter that is indispensable to determining Plaintiff's standing and the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application. Pursuant to this Order, Plaintiff shall re-file its Motion to Substitute Party and notice it for the next available hearing date after consulting Ms. Martha Parker-Brown, the Courtroom Deputy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Aerielle Techs. Inc. v. Belkin Int'l

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
Nov 17, 2011
Case No.: 10-CV-01301-LHK (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2011)
Case details for

Aerielle Techs. Inc. v. Belkin Int'l

Case Details

Full title:AERIELLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. BELKIN INTERNATIONAL, ET AL.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Date published: Nov 17, 2011

Citations

Case No.: 10-CV-01301-LHK (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2011)