Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03159/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03159-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUROSEMILLAS, S.A.,

Plaintiff,

v.

PLC DIAGNOSTICS INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-03159-MEJ 

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS 

COUNTERCLAIM FOR 

DECLARATORY RELIEF; MOTION 

FOR SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 83, 84

This matter is currently scheduled for a hearing on April 5, 2018 regarding Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim and Motion for Sanctions. See MTD, Dkt. No. 83; Mot. for 

Sanctions, Dkt. No. 84. Defendants filed oppositions to both motions. MTD Opp’n, Dkt. No. 86; 

Mot. for Sanctions Opp’n, Dkt. No. 87. Plaintiff filed replies. MTD Reply, Dkt. No. 89; Mot. for 

Sanctions Reply, Dkt. No. 91. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b) and Civil Local 

Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds these matters suitable for disposition without oral argument and 

VACATES the April 5, 2018 hearing. 

Plaintiff has not demonstrated at this juncture that the counterclaim for declaratory relief is 

redundant such that it can be stricken pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), or that it 

fails to state a claim such that it can be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Based on the record 

in this matter, the Court declines to strike or dismiss the counterclaim. The Motion to Dismiss the 

Counterclaim is DENIED. 

The Motion for Sanctions is based on Plaintiff’s contention that the counterclaims 

Defendants initially filed in this action were presented for an improper purpose, were not 

warranted by existing law, or did not constitute a non-frivolous argument. See Mot. for Sanctions. 

The Motion does not acknowledge that, after the Court heard oral argument and ordered the 

Case 3:17-cv-03159-TSH Document 92 Filed 03/28/18 Page 1 of 3
2

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

parties to submit further briefing on a number of issues (Dkt. No. 72), Plaintiff stipulated to 

Defendants’ filing of a single amended counterclaim for declaratory relief (Dkt. No. 79), which

omitted the remainder of their original counterclaims (Dkt. No. 82). In any event, the Court denies 

the Motion for Sanctions based on the same reasoning it applied in denying Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Sanctions against Third Party Plaintiffs (Order, Dkt. No. 88), and because it denies Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Dismiss the remaining counterclaim for declaratory relief. 

The Court also reminds Plaintiff that it voluntarily amended its original complaint after 

Defendants filed their first Motion to Dismiss (First Mot., Dkt. No. 12; Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 17), 

and that the Court granted Defendants’ second Motion to Dismiss (Second Mot., Dkt. No. 20; 

Aug. 2017 Order, Dkt. No. 26 (Plaintiff fails to state a breach of contract claim against NMS; fails 

to state a breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim against either NMS or 

PLC; fails to state a fraudulent inducement claim against any defendant; and fails to state a UCL 

claim against any defendant)). Defendants bore the costs of twice moving to dismiss Plaintiff’s

claims before it was able to state a claim in the Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 27).

1

 

The Court echoes Plaintiff’s counsel’s observation that the parties have engaged in “heavy 

and contentious motion practice[.]” MTD Reply at 4. Indeed, to date, the parties have asked the 

Court to rule on five motions to dismiss and two motions for sanctions. See Dkt. Nos. 12, 20, 46, 

54, 78, 83, 84. The Court shares counsel’s concern that this “presages the path that lies ahead” 

(MTD Reply at 4), but this alone does not establish prejudice.2 

The Court observes that the parties generally have not met their responsibility “to secure 

the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination” of this action (Fed. R. Civ. P. 1), and that they 

have repeatedly failed to follow the Court’s Local Rules. Now that the pleadings are settled, the 

Court encourages the parties to focus on the merits of the claims and to litigate this case in a 

 

1

Plaintiff’s current counsel did not appear in this action until October 2017, after the filing of the 

Second Amended Complaint and of the Third Party Complaint. See Dkt. No. 41. Counsel 

subsequently filed three motions to dismiss and two motions for sanctions.

2

Plaintiff’s counsel’s observation has not stopped him from appealing this Court’s denial of his 

motion for sanctions filed on behalf of the now-dismissed Third Party Defendants. See Not. of 

Appeal, Dkt. No. 90. 

Case 3:17-cv-03159-TSH Document 92 Filed 03/28/18 Page 2 of 3
3

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

cooperative, efficient manner for the benefit of their clients. In the undersigned’s experience, 

scorched-earth litigation tactics do not benefit anyone, unnecessarily burden the parties, and drain 

the resources of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 28, 2018

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-03159-TSH Document 92 Filed 03/28/18 Page 3 of 3