Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01539/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01539-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 10cv1539

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRAIN LIFE, LLC, a Delaware limited

liability company,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv1539-LAB (BGS)

ORDER ON MOTION FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT OR, IN

THE ALTERNATIVE, TO DISMISS

MEDTRONIC’S MOTION TO

DISMISS

vs.

ELEKTA INC., a Georgia corporation,

MEDTRONIC, INC., a Delaware

corporation, VARIAN MEDICAL

SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware

corporation, BRAINLAB, INC., a

Delaware corporation,

Defendants.

After Brain Life filed its original complaint in this case, Defendants Brainlab and

Medtronic filed answers, and Defendants Varian Medical Systems and Elekta filed motions

to dismiss. The Court denied Elekta’s motion to dismiss, without prejudice, and it granted

Varian’s motion to dismiss, also without prejudice and with leave to Brain Life to amend its

complaint. 

Then Brain Life filed an amended complaint. Brainlab again answered, as did Elekta,

and Varian again filed a motion to dismiss. But Medtronic, which had previously filed an

answer, instead filed a motion to dismiss. Medtronic now argues that the allegations against

it in Brain Life’s original complaint were nearly identical to the allegations against Varian that

Case 3:10-cv-01539-CAB-BGS Document 68 Filed 01/06/12 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 10cv1539

the Court dismissed without prejudice, and that Brain Life failed to modify those allegations

against Medtronic in its amended complaint. 

Brain Life, seizing on the fact that Medtronic initially answered its complaint, now asks

the Court to enter default judgment against Medtronic because it has failed to answer the

amended complaint. In the alternative, Brain Life asks the Court to essentially strike

Medtronic’s motion to dismiss and hold Medtronic to its original answer.

The motion for a default judgment is a non-starter. Medtronic made an appearance

shortly after Brain Life filed its original complaint, it answered that complaint, and it filed a

response to Brain Life’s amended complaint in the form of a motion to dismiss, which is now

fully briefed. Medtronic is clearly able and willing to litigate this case. Brain Life cannot

seriously expect the Court to enter judgment against Medtronic under these circumstances.

See In re Hammer, 940 F.2d 524, 525 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that default judgments are

“generally disfavored” and that cases should be decided on the merits “whenever it is

reasonably possible”). Brain Life’s motion is particularly unreasonable considering that

Brain Life questions whether Medtronic even had an obligation to respond to the amended

complaint in the first place:

As to Medtronic, the FAC is identical to the Original Complaint.

It would be superfluous to require Medtronic to file an answer.

(Dkt. No. 56-1 at 12.) To be fair, Brain Life advances this argument not in favor of default

judgment but in favor of striking Medtronic’s motion to dismiss, on the assumption that the

original complaint was not superceded by the amended complaint with respect to Medtronic.

Still, it is essentially Brain Life’s position that Medtronic had no obligation to respond in any

way to the amended complaint, but because it responded in the way it did judgment should

be entered against it. That position is not reasonable, and the motion for default judgment

is therefore DENIED.

The next question is whether Medtronic is bound to the previous answer it filed, or

whether the mere fact that Brain Life filed an amended complaint gives it a fresh crack at

dismissing Brain Life’s claims. Medtronic takes the position that an amended complaint

essentially starts the case over, and even though it answered a prior complaint it is free to

Case 3:10-cv-01539-CAB-BGS Document 68 Filed 01/06/12 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 10cv1539

move to dismiss an amended complaint. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005

(9th Cir. 2010), Stamas v. County of Madera, 2010 WL 289310 at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15,

2010). Brain Life argues that the Court only granted it leave to amend its allegations against

Varian, and its allegations against Medtronic remained the same. Therefore, the complaint

is not amended with respect to Medtronic, and Medtronic is bound by its answer to the

original complaint. The question, then, is whether the amended complaint supersedes the

original as to all Defendants, or only as to Varian.

Brain Life concedes the general rule that an amended complaint supersedes its

original, and it offers little positive authority for the proposition that this principle has no

traction in multiple defendant cases where the allegations against a particular defendant in

an amended complaint do not change. The best case it offers is In re Atlas Van Lines, Inc.,

209 F.3d 1064 (8th Cir. 2000), which it mistakenly cites as 20 F.3d 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

In Atlas, the Eighth Circuit recognized an exception to the “well-established” rule that “an

amended complaint supercedes an original complaint and renders the original complaint

without legal effect.” Id. at 1067. That exception arose, however, in a particular (and rather

convoluted) procedural posture that is not present here. The question here is more basic:

Can Medtronic change course and move to dismiss a complaint that it previously answered

when the factual allegations against it in the amended complaint are the same? 

Surprisingly, there is no caselaw that addresses this issue head-on—at least none

that the parties identify or that the Court can locate. The Court sides with Brain Life,

however. There is no getting around the fact that Medtronic answered Brain Life’s original

complaint, and Brain Life filed an amended complaint only to correct the inadequacies the

Court found in its claims against Varian. (See Dkt. No. 45 at 20.) The factual allegations

against Medtronic remained the same, which was sensible on Brain Life’s part considering

that Brain Life had answered them. It’s true, as Medtronic argues in its motion to dismiss,

that “[t]he allegations against Medtronic were nearly identical in all material respects to those

which the Court found deficient,” and if Medtronic had filed a motion to dismiss rather than

an answer the Court would probably have granted it. The Court wouldn’t go so far, however,

Case 3:10-cv-01539-CAB-BGS Document 68 Filed 01/06/12 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 - 10cv1539

to label its ruling on Varian’s motion to dismiss “the law of the case” such that Medtronic may

now be excused from its answer and benefit from a motion that it strategically chose not to

file. 

If Medtronic were to get its way, defendants in multiple-defendant cases could

repeatedly revise their tactical approach when, fortuitously, the claims against another

defendant are dismissed without prejudice and a plaintiff is granted leave to amend. The

potential for gamesmanship and delay would be great, particularly in cases involving

numerous defendants in which a plaintiff is given multiple opportunities to amend. To be

clear, the Court is not taking the position that Medtronic has waived the argument that Brain

Life has failed to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(2).

Medtronic has simply waived the opportunity to make that argument in a Rule 12(b)(6)

motion to dismiss. 

Brain Life’s motion to strike Medtronic’s motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED.

The Court finds no prejudice to Medtronic in this, because it is in no worse position than it

was in when it answered Brain Life’s original complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 3, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01539-CAB-BGS Document 68 Filed 01/06/12 Page 4 of 4