Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00608/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00608-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

19cv0608 DMS (LL)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERMI LLC, a Delaware limited liability 

company,

Plaintiff,

v.

SPORTSTEK MEDICAL, INC., a 

California corporation; and DANE 

JENSEN, an individual,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19cv0608 DMS (LL)

ORDER (1) DENYING AS MOOT 

MOTION TO DISMISS, (2) 

DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AND (3) DEFERRING 

RULING ON MOTION TO STAY

This case comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss or, in the 

alternative, motion for summary judgment, and motion to stay. Plaintiff filed an opposition 

to the motion, and Defendant filed a reply. 

After Defendant filed its motion, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in which 

it removed Mr. Jensen as a Defendant, along with its claims for willful and indirect 

infringement. In light of that filing, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss as 

moot. See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) 

(stating motion to dismiss first amended complaint should have been deemed moot upon 

filing of second amended complaint). 

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00608-DMS-LL Document 23 Filed 06/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

19cv0608 DMS (LL)

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

On Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s counsel states “that, at 

such an early stage of litigation, ERMI cannot effectively respond substantively to any 

motion for summary judgment.” (Decl. of Patrick Horne in Supp. of Opp’n to Mot. ¶ 9, 

ECF No. 15-1.) Plaintiff correctly notes this kind of general declaration is insufficient to 

avoid summary judgment. Rather, “[a] party requesting a continuance pursuant to Rule 

56(f) must identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and 

explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment.” Tatum v. City and County 

of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006).1 Nevertheless, Defendant appears 

to agree that specific, targeted discovery may be appropriate here. (See Reply Br.) 

Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment and orders the parties to contact the Magistrate Judge’s chambers to schedule an 

Early Neutral Evaluation conference at the earliest possible date to discuss what discovery 

is necessary for the Court to resolve the issues raised in Defendant’s motion for summary 

judgment, and a timeline for completing that discovery. Once that discovery is completed, 

Defendant may file a renewed motion for summary judgment. 

On the motion for stay, Defendant states in its reply brief that the Court should defer 

ruling on that motion pending a decision on any motion for summary judgment. (Id. at 8-

10.) Accordingly, the Court defers ruling on Defendant’s motion to stay pending resolution 

of the summary judgment issues. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 28, 2019

 

1

 In the 2010 Amendments to Rule 56, subdivision (f) was revised “without substantial 

change” into subdivision (d). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 advisory committee’s notes (2010 

amendment).

Case 3:19-cv-00608-DMS-LL Document 23 Filed 06/28/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2