j2 Global, Inc. et al v. Integrated Global Concepts, Inc., No. 2:2012cv03439 - Document 34 (C.D. Cal. 2013)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(B)(3) 26 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ) (lc). Modified on 6/27/2013 (lc).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
j2 Global, Inc. et al v. Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. Doc. 34 1 2 O 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 j2 GLOBAL, INC., and ADVANCED MESSAGING TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 13 Plaintiffs, 14 15 v. INTEGRATED GLOBAL CONCEPTS, INC., 16 Defendant. 17 ___________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CV 12-03439 DDP (PLAx) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO RULE 12(B)(3) [Docket No. 26] 18 19 I. Background 20 j2 Global, Inc. (“j2") has sued Integrated Global Concepts, 21 Inc. (“IGC”) for patent infringement. 22 Docket No. 1.) 23 Northern District of California (the “Northern District action”) to 24 determine the enforceability of a forum selection clause in a 25 contract between the parties that IGC states implicates the instant 26 case. 27 Stay Proceedings (“Order”), Docket No 23 at 2:15-17.) 28 IGC’s request, this Court stayed the instant case, pending the (See generally Compl., In response, IGC brought a suit against j2 in the (Order Granting in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Pursuant to Dockets.Justia.com 1 determination by the Northern District whether it would enforce the 2 forum selection clause. 3 stay and in response to IGC’s suit, j2 brought counterclaims in the 4 Northern District consisting of the same patent infringement claim 5 made in the present case. 6 Docket No. 28 (“On April 12, 2013, j2 asserted the same Patent 7 Claims that are in this case . . . in the Northern District 8 action.”) 9 present Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) (“Motion”). (See generally Order at 4:1-8.) After the (See generally Heiser Decl. Ex. 4; Because of these counterclaims, IGC has filed the 10 (See generally Docket No. 26.) 11 reply brief in this case, j2 filed a Motion to Dismiss Counts IV, 12 V, and Prayer for Punitive Damages of Plaintiff Integrated Global 13 Concepts, Inc.’s (“IGC”) Counterclaims Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) in 14 the Northern District action. 15 J2 Global, Inc. et al., No. 12-cv-3434-RMW, Docket No. 47.)1 16 II. Legal Standard for Lifting a Stay 17 On the same day that IGC filed its (Integrated Global Concepts, Inc. v. A district court has discretionary power to stay proceedings 18 in its own court. 19 (1936). 20 for imposing the stay are nonexistent or inappropriate, a court has 21 the inherent power and discretion to lift the stay. 22 Elektromedizin GmbH, 271 F. Supp. 2d 64, 74 (D.D.C.2002); Indep. 23 Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. Douglas, No. CV 08–3315, 24 1622346, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2012). See Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248 When the circumstances have changed such that the reasons Canady v. Erbe 2012 WL 25 26 1 27 28 The Court takes judicial notice of this filing. Evid. 201. 2 Fed. R. 1 Comity is “a discretionary doctrine which permits one 2 district to decline judgment on an issue which is properly before 3 another district.” 4 the Army, 611 F.2d 738, 749 (9th Cir. 1979). 5 formulation, the comity doctrine permits a district court to 6 decline jurisdiction over a matter if a complaint has already been 7 filed in another district.” 8 called the “first to file” rule). 9 for scarce judicial resources, comity demands a “flexible approach” Church of Scientology v. United States Dep’t of “In its classic Id. (discussing what is sometimes However, in light of concerns 10 to allow a district court to choose not to exercise jurisdiction 11 over an earlier filed case when a later case before a different 12 court is further along in the proceedings. 13 district court to “transfer, stay, or dismiss” a case “involving 14 the same parties and issues” as another case. 15 Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir. 1997). 16 should not be granted when a party will suffer prejudice. 17 Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 629 (9th 18 Cir. 1991). 19 III. Analysis 20 Id. Comity allows a See Cedars-Sinai Dismissal Because conditions have changed since the Court ordered the 21 stay, lifting it is appropriate. 22 Most notably, since the Court ordered the stay, in the Northern 23 District action j2 has counterclaimed the same patent claims at 24 issue here and has moved to dismiss various IGC counterclaims. 25 Thus the Court will decide the dismissal issue. Canady, 271 F. Supp. 2d at 74. 26 Dismissal initially seems appropriate, as the Northern 27 District action is further along and it involves the same patent 28 3 1 infringement claims. See Church of Scientology, 611 F.2d at 749. 2 Additionally, j2's patent infringement counterclaims in the 3 Northern District action trigger disclosures that the parties must 4 quickly provide each other. 5 Further, after IGC filed this motion, j2 filed a motion to dismiss 6 various IGC counterclaims in the Northern District action: IGC’s 7 declaratory relief claims for exhaustion and implied license, and 8 IGC’s claim for punitive damages. 9 the Northern District action.) See N.D. Cal. Patent Rule 3-1. (See generally Docket No. 47 in Since j2 has asserted the same 10 patent claims in the Northern District action, the counterclaims it 11 is seeking to dismiss would likely be involved in this action.2 12 Accordingly, dismissal seems appropriate. 13 j2's brief states, but does not provide evidence to support, 14 that IGC plans to “bring a motion to bifurcate the Northern 15 District action.” 16 statement in [a party’s] briefing is not evidence.” 17 Prods., Inc. v. Jimenez, No. 11-CV-5435-LHK, 2012 WL 4713716, at *2 18 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2012) (citing United States v. Zermeno, 66 F.3d 19 1058, 1062 (9th Cir.1995).) 20 Northern District action is bifurcated and then j2 prevails on 21 IGC’s Contract Claim, then the reason for litigating j2's Patent 22 claims in the Northern District . . . will no longer exists.” 23 at 3:27-4:2. 24 might happen. Docket No. 28 at 2 :19-20. An “unsworn J & J Sports j2 then states that, “[i]f the Id. But j2's argument is based on speculation of what 25 26 2 27 28 It appears that, because of the stay, IGC has not filed an answer or any counterclaims in this case. 4 1 j2 states that dismissal would cause prejudice. See Alltrade, 2 Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d at 629. 3 because it is only entitled to damages for infringement for the six 4 years’ preceding the filing of its complaint, it will lose damages 5 because the instant case was filed before the Northern District 6 action’s counterclaims. 7 no calculations or figures to explain how much, if any, it stands 8 to lose in damages. 9 Prods., 2012 WL 4713716 at *2. 10 Docket No. 28:9-17. This is insufficient. j2 states that However, j2 provides See J & J Sports j2 also states that IGC’s Motion is actually a motion for 11 reconsideration, and that it should, thus, be analyzed under the 12 framework of Local Rule 7-18. 13 dismiss. 14 as motions for reconsideration, they generally do so when nothing 15 material has changed between the two motions’ filings. 16 v. Cnty. of Kern, 767 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1108 (E.D. Cal. 2011) 17 (treating as motions for reconsideration two motions in limine and 18 a motion made at a Rule 51 conference, when plaintiff had 19 previously filed a motion to strike, motion for reconsideration, 20 and a motion for summary judgment on the same issue); Sabra v. 21 Clark, No. C06-1832-RSL-JPD 2007, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11032, at *2-3 22 (W.D. Wash. January 30, 2007) (treating a second motion for a stay 23 that was filed 22 days after the first one was denied as a motion 24 for reconsideration). 25 generally have discretion to permit a second motion, and will not 26 treat it as a motion for reconsideration. 27 Tonnemacher, 593 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a 28 This is IGC’s second motion to Although some district courts will treat renewed motions See Jadwin However, when new facts develop, courts 5 See Hoffman v. 1 district court does not abuse its discretion when it allows a 2 successive motion for summary judgment that is supported by an 3 expanded factual record). 4 this Court will not analyze the Motion under a motion for 5 reconsideration standard. In light of the new facts discussed, 6 Finally, j2 states that this case should be transferred, 7 instead of dismissed, but its reasons are not persuasive because it 8 has not shown that dismissal would cause prejudice. 9 IV. Conclusion 10 11 For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS IGC’s Motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 Dated: June 27, 2013 DEAN D. PREGERSON United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
