Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05090/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05090-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Unither Pharma, Inc., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

The Daily Wellness Company,

Defendant.

__________________________________

Unither Pharma, Inc., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Herbalife International, Inc.

Defendant.

__________________________________

Herbalife International, Inc.

Plaintiff,

 v.

Unither Pharma, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Nos. C 02-05284 JW 

C 03-0415 JW

Related Case Nos. C 03-5090 JW

 C 03-5878 JW

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO STRIKE HERBALIFE’S

STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION

Currently before the Court is Unither’s Motion to Strike Herbalife’s Statement of Recent Decision. 

The Court finds this matter to be suitable for disposition without oral arguments. See Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). 

Accordingly, the Court vacates the hearing presently scheduled for December 5, 2005.

Case 5:03-cv-05090-JW Document 131 Filed 11/29/05 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

On October 19, 2005, Herbalife filed its Statement of Recent Decision pursuant to Civil Local

Rules 7-3(d). Unither moves to strike on the ground that Herbalife’s statement is procedurally defective or

in the alternative, seeks leave to respond to Herbalife’s statement.

Civil Local Rule 7-3(d) permits parties to bring to the Court’s attention a relevant judicial opinion

published after the date the opposition or reply has been filed without argument. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). 

However, the rule provides that no additional memoranda may be filed without prior court’s approval. Id. 

Herbalife’s filing of the additional papers without first seeking the Court’s approval violates Rule 7-

3(d). Accordingly, the Court grants Unither’s motion to strike. Additionally, since Rule 7-3(d) does not

permit a party to submit arguments along with statement of recent decision, the Court will not consider the

arguments advance by either parties. Unither’s request for leave to respond is effectively denied.

Incidentally, the Court is already familiar with the recent decisions submitted by the parties.

Dated: November 29, 2005 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05090-JW Document 131 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 2