Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02439/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-02439-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

1

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02439-EJD

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN RUSSELL SNYDER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-02439-EJD 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 26

Plaintiff Sprint Solutions, Inc. (“Sprint”) brings this action against John Russell Snyder 

and Thirty-One Echo, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging injuries arising from the unlawful 

and unauthorized purchasing and reselling of Sprint wireless telephones. 

In a motion challenging Sprint’s pleading, Defendants have moved, inter alia, to dismiss 

all of Sprint’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 26. Defendants argue 

dismissal is necessary because the parties “contractually waived” the subject matter jurisdiction of 

this court pursuant to an agreement providing that disputes be submitted to a dispute resolution 

process. In response to this argument, Sprint indicates that it does not oppose staying the claims 

asserted in this action - save for the claim for injunctive relief - so that the parties may engage in 

the contractual dispute resolution process. 

Although not explicit, the parties’ arguments suggest recognition that (1) an agreement 

exists between Sprint and Defendants that requires the submission of claims to dispute resolution, 

and (2) that most of Sprint’s claims are subject to that agreement. Accordingly, it appears to the 

court that an efficient resolution may be the one proposed by Sprint: the entry of an order 

compelling the parties to participate in the contractual dispute resolution process as to certain 

claims, and staying those claims during that process. 

Case 5:15-cv-02439-EJD Document 63 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 5:15-cv-02439-EJD

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Accordingly, on or before June 15, 2016, each party shall file a brief written response, not 

exceeding three pages in length, which addresses the court’s proposal.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-02439-EJD Document 63 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 2