Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01434/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01434-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 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 06cv1434

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENS ERIK SORENSEN, as Trustee of

SORENSEN RESEARCH AND

DEVELOPMENT TRUST,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1434 BTM (CAB)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

JUDGMENT

vs.

HEAD USA, INC., a Connecticut

corporation,

Defendant.

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Stay Proceedings pursuant to Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55.

The Court, having reviewed the submissions of both parties and considered the

matter, hereby DENIES Defendant’s motion to stay. This denial is without prejudice to

Defendant’s opportunity to bring a new motion to stay under the “first-to-file” rule if Plaintiff’s

motion to dismiss or transfer venue in the related matter pending before the District Court of

Connecticut is denied.

The Court, having reviewed the submissions of both parties and considered the

matter, also DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment. Defendant styled its motion to

stay as a motion under Rule 12(b)(3) and the “first-to-file” rule. While a motion to stay is

generally considered to be outside of the ambit of the Rule 12(b) motions that suffice as

Case 3:06-cv-01434-BTM-CAB Document 27 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 3
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 06cv1434

responsive pleadings, they are often considered by courts prior to the filing of an answer.

See, e.g., Butler v. Judge of United States District Court, 116 F.2d 1013, 1015 (9th Cir. 1941);

Intec USA, LLC v. Engle, No. 1:05cv468, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24100, at *1 n.1 (M.D.N.C.

Mar. 23, 2006); Cunningham v. Posnet Services, LLC, No. 4:05-cv-4191-JLF, 2005 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 34140, at *1-2 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2005); Smith v. Pay-Fone Systems, Inc., 627 F.

Supp. 121, 122-23 (N.D. Ga. 1985); see also 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 1360 (3d ed. 2006) (“A motion to stay also is not within the

ambit of the defenses enumerated in Rule 12(b). Nonetheless, relying on their inherent

power, federal courts often consider these motions in an effort to maximize the effective

utilization of judicial resources and to minimize the possibility of conflicts between different

courts.”). Thus, while Defendant failed to file a responsive pleading, its motion to stay was

a timely and proper filing. Defendant is certainly not ignoring this lawsuit and, accordingly,

an entry of default is not appropriate. See Cunningham, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34140, at *3

(finding entry of default unwarranted where Defendant removed the matter to federal court

and filed motion to stay pending ruling in parallel district court proceeding). Even if this Court

were to enter default against Defendant, that default would almost certainly be vacated

because Defendant appeared to be acting under the good-faith, but mistaken, belief that its

motion to stay qualified as a defense under Rule 12(b). Thus, its failure to file a timely

responsive pleading would be excusable. See TCI Group Life Insurance Plan v. Knoebber,

244 F.3d 691, 695-98 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is

denied.

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-01434-BTM-CAB Document 27 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 3
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 06cv1434

Defendant is directed to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint within ten (10) days of the

entry of this order. Both parties shall appear before Magistrate Judge Bencivengo for an

Early Neutral Evaluation conference on December 12, 2006 at 2:00pm.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 31, 2006

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01434-BTM-CAB Document 27 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 3