Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01704/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01704-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Trademarks - International conventions

---

1

3:17-cv-01704-BEN-MDD

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

SIMPSON PERFORMANCE 

PRODUCTS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NECKSGEN INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01704-BEN-MDD

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

On August 24, 2016, Plaintiff Simpson Performance Products, Inc. (“Simpson”) 

filed its initial Complaint in the Western District of North Carolina. (Docket No. 1.) In 

response, Defendant NecksGen, Inc. (“NecksGen”) filed a motion to dismiss. Within 21 

days of the filing of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Simpson filed an Amended 

Complaint (“AC”). (Docket No. 12.) Thereafter, NecksGen sought leave to file a motion 

to dismiss Plaintiff’s AC, which was granted by Magistrate Judge David Keesler. 

(Docket Nos. 14-15.) Magistrate Judge Keesler also recommended that Judge Richard 

Voorhees deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss the initial complaint as moot. (Docket No. 

15.) On January 25, 2017, NecksGen filed its second motion to dismiss the AC, to which 

Plaintiff filed its opposition, and NecksGen filed a reply. (Docket Nos. 16-18.) 

On June 6, 2017, while both motions to dismiss were pending, NecksGen filed a 

third motion to dismiss for improper venue in light of the May 22, 2017 Supreme Court 

Case 3:17-cv-01704-BEN-MDD Document 29 Filed 09/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

3:17-cv-01704-BEN-MDD

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

opinion in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017). 

On August 23, 2017, Judge Voorhees denied NecksGen’s first motion to dismiss as moot, 

granted NecksGen’s third motion to dismiss for improper venue, and transferred the 

action to this District. (Docket Nos. 25-6.) 

The case was initially assigned to Judge William Q. Hayes. (Docket Nos. 27.) On 

August 29, 2017, Judge Hayes declined assignment pursuant to General Order 598, and 

the case was reassigned to this Court. (Docket No. 28.) Now pending before this Court 

is NecksGen’s second motion to dismiss the AC. (Docket No. 16.) A review of the 

parties’ briefings indicates the interests of justice and judicial economy would benefit 

from a re-briefing of the issues according to the appropriate authorities in light of the 

transfer of this case between districts. 

Therefore, NecksGen’s motion to dismiss the AC is DENIED without prejudice. 

NecksGen shall file its answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s AC on or before

September 22, 2017. If NecksGen elects to file a motion to dismiss, Simpson shall file 

its opposition on or before October 6, 2017, NecksGen’s reply shall be due on or 

before October 13, 2017, and the Clerk of the Court shall schedule a hearing on this 

motion for October 23, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. The parties are further ordered to comply 

with the Civil Local Rules for the Southern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01704-BEN-MDD Document 29 Filed 09/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2