Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03524/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03524-3/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

1Remaining Defendants Sonic Drill Corporation, Sonic Drilling,

Ltd. and Ray Roussy have been served but have not answered the

complaint or joined in this motion.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENLINK GEOENERGY SERVICES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JACKSON & SONS DRILLING & PUMP, INC.;

JAMES D. JACKSON; SONIC DRILL

CORPORATION; SONIC DRILLING, LTD.;

and RAY ROUSSY, 

Defendants. /

No. C 09-03524 CW

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION

TO DISMISS 

In this patent infringement case, Defendants Jaskson & Sons

Drilling & Pump, Inc. and James Jackson (Jackson Defendants) move

to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) all

claims brought against them.1 Jackson Defendants argue that

Plaintiff Enlink Geoenergy Services, Inc. has failed to allege a

short and plain statement showing that it is entitled to relief for

each of its four causes of action. Plaintiff opposes the motion. 

The matter was taken under submission on the papers. Having

considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court GRANTS

Case 4:09-cv-03524-CW Document 69 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 7
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

Jackson Defendants’ motion. 

DISCUSSION

A complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 8(a). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, dismissal is appropriate

only when the complaint does not give the defendant fair notice of

a legally cognizable claim and the grounds on which it rests. 

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). In

considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim,

the court will take all material allegations as true and construe

them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. NL Indus., Inc.

v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). However, this

principle is inapplicable to legal conclusions; “threadbare

recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere

conclusory statements,” are not taken as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550

U.S. at 555).

When granting a motion to dismiss, the court is generally

required to grant the plaintiff leave to amend, even if no request

to amend the pleading was made, unless amendment would be futile. 

Cook, Perkiss & Liehe, Inc. v. N. Cal. Collection Serv. Inc., 911

F.2d 242, 246-47 (9th Cir. 1990). In determining whether amendment

would be futile, the court examines whether the complaint could be

amended to cure the defect requiring dismissal “without

contradicting any of the allegations of [the] original complaint.” 

Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Leave to amend should be liberally granted, but an amended

Case 4:09-cv-03524-CW Document 69 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 7
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

3

complaint cannot allege facts inconsistent with the challenged

pleading. Id. at 296-97.

Plaintiff brings three types of claims against Jackson

Defendants: (1) direct infringement claims against Jackson

Drilling, (2) inducement claims against Mr. Jackson and (3) a claim

for injunctive relief under California’s Contractor License Law,

California Business and Professions Code section 7028.4 against

Jackson Drilling. Jackson Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s

complaint does not include enough detail to put them on notice of

Plaintiff’s claims and the grounds upon which they rest. The Court

agrees.

After reviewing the complaint, the Court concludes that

Plaintiff’s complaint merely restates the elements of the

infringement causes of action. Plaintiff offers the same

allegation to support each of its direct infringement claims: “In

violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Defendant Jackson Drilling has

offered for sale, sold, and performed in the United States methods

that infringe one or more claims of the” patent at issue. FAC

¶¶ 11, 20, 29. Plaintiff does not include any further information

about what Jackson Drilling did to infringe the patents in

question. Specifically, Plaintiff has not identified the activity

that Jackson Drilling allegedly undertakes that infringes

Plaintiff’s patents. 

Even compared to the minimalist approach embodied in Form 18

from the appendix to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure,

Plaintiff’s complaint falls short. “The forms in the Appendix

suffice under these rules and illustrate the simplicity and brevity

that these rules contemplate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 84. Form 18 offers

Case 4:09-cv-03524-CW Document 69 Filed 03/24/10 Page 3 of 7
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

4

an example of how to plead a claim for direct infringement. The

Form provides, in relevant part, “The defendant has infringed and

is still infringing the Letters Patent by making, selling, and

using electric motors that embody the patented invention, and the

defendant will continue to do so unless enjoined by this court.” 

(Emphasis in original). Form 18 requires a plaintiff to identify

the device or method that is accused of infringement, “electric

motors,” but Plaintiff’s complaint provides nothing more than a

class of infringing activity: “methods.” The pleading fails to

notify Jackson Drilling of the methods it is allegedly infringing. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s direct infringement

causes of action because they fail to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted.

Plaintiff’s claims for indirect infringement against Mr.

Jackson are equally conclusory and uninformative. To prevail on an

inducement claim, “the patentee must establish ‘first that there

has been direct infringement, and second that the alleged infringer

knowingly induced infringement and possessed specific intent to

encourage another’s infringement.’” ACCO Brands, Inc. v. ABA Locks

Mfr. Co., Ltd., 501 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Minn.

Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1304-05 (Fed.

Cir. 2002). Here, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts to support

its inducement causes of action against Mr. Jackson. Plaintiff’s

complaint merely repeats the exact language from the statute

without adding any factual allegations. Mere conclusory

recitations of a statute are not sufficient under Rule 8 to plead a

cause of action. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Therefore, the Court

dismisses the inducement claims against Mr. Jackson.

Case 4:09-cv-03524-CW Document 69 Filed 03/24/10 Page 4 of 7
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

5

Plaintiff brings a claim against Jackson Drilling under

section 7028.4 of the California Business and Professions Code. 

This section is part of the Contractors’ State License Law,

Business and Professions Code section 7000 et seq. Jackson

Defendants argue that section 7028.4 does not create a private

right of action. The section provides, 

In addition to the remedies set forth in Section 7028.3, on

proper showing by (1) a licensed contractor, or an

association of contractors, (2) a consumer affected by the

violation, (3) a district attorney, or (4) the Attorney

General, of a continuing violation of this chapter by a

person who does not hold a state contractor's license in any

classification, an injunction shall issue by a court

specified in Section 7028.3 at the request of any such

party, prohibiting such violation. The plaintiff in any such

action shall not be required to prove irreparable injury.

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7028.4. Jackson Defendants argue that

section 7028.3 is the only section that authorizes a cause of

action. That section states: 

In addition to all other remedies, when it appears to the

registrar, either upon complaint or otherwise, that a

licensee has engaged in, or is engaging in, any act,

practice, or transaction which constitutes a violation of

this chapter whereby another person may be substantially

injured, . . . the registrar may, either through the

Attorney General or through the district attorney of the

county in which the act, practice, or transaction is alleged

to have been committed, apply to the superior court of that

county or any other county in which such person maintains a

place of business or resides, for an injunction . . . .

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 7028.3. Jackson Defendants argue that,

together, these statutes dictate that only the registrar of the

Contractors State License Board may, through the Attorney General

or a district attorney, file a complaint. Jackson Defendants note

that no court has directly addressed whether section 7028.4 creates

a private right of action. Although section 7028.3 limits claims

to those made by the Attorney General or a district attorney,

Case 4:09-cv-03524-CW Document 69 Filed 03/24/10 Page 5 of 7
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

6

section 7028.4 explicitly notes that it provides remedies “in

addition to” those set forth in 7028.3. Section 7028.4 lists four

distinct entities that may enforce the statute, two of which are

private parties –- licensed contractors and consumers. Therefore,

the plain language of section 7028.4 appears to supply private

parties a right of action to sue for an injunction under the

statute. Accordingly, the Court denies Jackson Defendants’ motion

to dismiss this cause of action on this ground.

However, just as with the infringement claims, Plaintiff has

failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim under section

7028.4. Again, Plaintiff merely repeats the language of the

statute, alleging that Jackson Drilling is engaged in “continued

violations” of the California Contractors’ State License Law. In

sum, Plaintiff’s complaint resembles a “formulaic recitation of the

elements” of the statutes Jackson Defendants are alleged to have

violated. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Therefore, Plaintiff has

failed to state a claim for a violation of section 7028.4. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Jackson

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint (Docket No.

64). Because Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Sonic Drilling

Corporation, Sonic Drilling, Ltd. and Ray Roussy are based on the

same facts and legal theories as its claims against the moving

Defendants, its claims against Sonic Drilling Corporation, Sonic

Drilling, Ltd. and Ray Roussy are dismissed as well. See Abigninin

v. AMVAC Chemical Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742-43 (9th Cir. 2008);

Silverton v. Dep’t of Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981)

(“A District Court may properly on its own motion dismiss an action

Case 4:09-cv-03524-CW Document 69 Filed 03/24/10 Page 6 of 7
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

7

as to defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such

defendants are in a position similar to that of moving defendants

or where claims against such defendants are integrally related.”). 

The Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend its complaint to remedy

the deficiencies noted above, if it can truthfully do so. An

amended complaint must be filed within two weeks of this order. 

Defendants shall file an answer or a motion to dismiss within two

weeks thereafter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 03/24/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-03524-CW Document 69 Filed 03/24/10 Page 7 of 7