Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00222/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00222-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

COREMETRICS, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

ATOMIC PARK.COM, LLC, a/k/a

ATOMICPARK.COM, and DOES 1 though

20, inclusive,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-0222 EMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

(Docket No. 38)

On February 22, 2005, this Court ordered the parties to provide supplemental briefing,

limited to five pages each, on AtomicPark’s motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 30. On April 13,

2005, Coremetrics filed its supplemental briefing, which exceeded the five-page limit. Coremetrics

also filed a supplemental declaration from its counsel, with exhibits attached. Subsequently,

AtomicPark objected to and moved to strike Coremetrics’s supplemental brief and supplemental

declaration. In response, Coremetrics stated that it was willing to give AtomicPark an opportunity to

respond to the new arguments and facts; alternatively, Coremetrics asked the Court to consider at

least the five pages of its supplemental brief regarding general jurisdiction.

Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions on AtomicPark’s

motion to strike, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion. More

specifically, the Court shall strike those parts of Coremetrics’s supplemental brief that discuss

specific jurisdiction. Coremetrics failed to raise any argument on specific jurisdiction in its original

Case 3:04-cv-00222-EMC Document 44 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

opposition to AtomicPark’s motion to dismiss. However, the Court shall not strike those parts of the

supplemental brief that address general jurisdiction. The purpose of the Court’s order on

supplemental briefing was to give the parties an opportunity to cite recent authority on the issue of

general jurisdiction. However, nowhere in the order did the Court specifically preclude the parties

from citing earlier cases.

In addition, even though the Court’s order on supplemental briefing did not permit any

additional evidence to be filed, the Court shall not strike the supplemental declaration filed by

counsel for Coremetrics. However, to ensure that AtomicPark is not thereby prejudiced, the Court

shall give AtomicPark an opportunity to file any supplemental evidence to respond to the

supplemental declaration of Mr. Farrer. AtomicPark shall have until May 16, 2005, to file

supplemental evidence in response to the supplemental declaration of Mr. Farrer.

This order disposes of Docket No. 38.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2005

 /s/ 

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00222-EMC Document 44 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2