Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02478/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02478-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BAP)

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Carlyle Fortran Trust, et al.,

Plaintiffs/Appellants,

 v.

nVidia Corp., et al.,

Defendants/Appellees.

 /

NO. C 05-00427 JW 

NO. C 09-02478 JW

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

NVIDIA’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF

JUDGMENT; SUA SPONTE

RECONSIDERING CARLYLE’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AND

GRANTING LEAVE; SETTING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Presently before the Court is nVidia’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Entry of Judgment. 

(hereafter, “Motion,” Docket Item No. 298.) The Court finds it appropriate to take the Motion under

submission without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

A. Background

The historical facts of this case, with respect to the transaction between 3DFX and nVidia

and 3DFX’s subsequent bankruptcy are set forth in greater detail in the Court’s September 29, 2006

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Carramerica’s Third Amended Complaint in the

Carramerica case. (See Docket Item No. 121.) The Court briefly reviews the relevant procedural

history to the extent it implicates the present Motion. 

On December 15, 2006, the Court issued an Order Granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss

Carlyle’s Fourth Amended Complaint with prejudice. (hereafter, “December 15 Order,” Docket

Item No. 183.) On January 9, 2007, Carlyle filed a Notice of Appeal of the December 15 Order to

the Ninth Circuit. (See Docket Item No. 202.) On September 11, 2008, the bankruptcy court

Case 5:09-cv-02478-JW Document 11 Filed 01/14/10 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 See Brandt v. NVIDIA Corp., 389 B.R. 842 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2008).

2

 (See Declaration of Justin M. Lichterman in Support of nVidia Defendants’ Motion for

Entry of Judgment, hereafter, “Lichterman Decl.,” Ex. B.) For identification purposes only, the

Court will refer to the claims that Carlyle wishes to bring against nVidia as “the Carlyle Claims.” 

3

 See CarrAmerica Realty Corp. v. nVidia Corp., 302 F. App’x 514, 517 (9th Cir. 2008).

2

entered judgment in favor of nVidia and dismissed all claims asserted by the 3DFX Bankruptcy

Trustee (“Trustee”).1

 On November 25, 2008, the Ninth Circuit issued a Memorandum affirming the

December 15 Order dismissing Carlyle’s Complaint. (See Docket Item No. 262.) On December 8,

2008, Carlyle filed a Motion for Clarification of the Court’s Memorandum which stated, in pertinent

part, that “the Trustee is deemed to have abandoned those claims alleged in Carlyle’s complaint,

which he did not pursue.”2

 On January 22, 2009, the Ninth Circuit issued an Order Amending

Memorandum which stated: “On remand, the district court is instructed to determine which of

Carlyle’s claims have been abandoned by the bankruptcy trustee, thus conferring standing on

Carlyle to pursue those claims.”3 On March 11, 2009, Carlyle filed a Motion for Abandonment in

the bankruptcy court. On March 13, 2009, the bankruptcy court issued its ruling denying Carlyle’s

Motion for Abandonment without prejudice. (hereafter, “Bankruptcy Court Ruling,” Lichterman

Decl., Ex. C.) On November 12, 2009, the Court issued an Order Denying Carlyle’s Motion for

Leave to Appeal the Bankruptcy Court Ruling. (hereafter, “November 12 Order,” C 09-2478 JW,

Docket Item No. 10.)

B. Discussion

Defendant now moves for entry of judgment against Carlyle on the ground that the Court has

dismissed all of Carlyle’s claims with prejudice, and thus Carlyle has no remaining claims in the

litigation. (Motion at 3-5.) Defendant further contends that the bankruptcy court has resolved the

one issue that the Ninth Circuit remanded in its January 22, 2009 Order, whether the Trustee has

abandoned any of the bankruptcy estate’s claims, and thus the litigation has run its full course. (Id.) 

Carlyle responds that since the bankruptcy court denied Carlyle’s Motion for Abandonment without

Case 5:09-cv-02478-JW Document 11 Filed 01/14/10 Page 2 of 4
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

prejudice, entering judgment now would deprive Carlyle of the opportunity to have any abandoned

claims adjudicated on their merits.

In its November 12 Order, the Court denied Carlyle’s Motion for Leave to Appeal the

Bankruptcy Court’s Ruling in part on the ground that the bankruptcy court had denied Carlyle’s

Motion for Abandonment without prejudice, and thus Carlyle was “free to re-file its Motion and

make the necessary showing that the Trustee has abandoned the Carlyle Claims.” (November 12

Order at 4.) In light of the passage of time, the Court, sua sponte, reconsiders its prior determination

and grants Carlyle leave to appeal. The Bankruptcy Court was clear in its finding that at “. . . the

time the District Court ruled on the Fourth Amended Complaint, and the time the Ninth Circuit

ruled, there had been no abandonment.” (Id.) Upon reconsideration, the Court finds the fact that the

Bankruptcy Court’s denial of Carlyle’s Motion was “without prejudice” is of no consequence to the

finality of the Order because the Motion was adjudicated on the merits. Thus, Carlyle may now

appeal the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES nVidia’s Motion for Entry of Judgment and ORDERS the

parties to meet and confer and stipulate to a briefing schedule for the appeal of the issue of

abandonment consistent with the Bankruptcy Local Rules. On or before January 27, 2010, the

parties shall file the Stipulation re: Briefing Schedule for Appeal for the Court’s approval.

Dated: January 13, 2010 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-02478-JW Document 11 Filed 01/14/10 Page 3 of 4
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Andrew A. August aaugust@pinnaclelawgroup.com

Betty Malka Shumener betty.shumener@dlapiper.com

Douglas A. Applegate daa@sezalaw.com

Douglas G. Boven dboven@reedsmith.com

Dwight Craig Donovan Dwight@mbvlaw.com

George M. Lee gml@sezalaw.com

Henry H. Oh henry.oh@dlapiper.com

James Neil Kramer jkramer@orrick.com

Jimmy S McBirney jmcbirney@orrick.com

Jonathan B. Gaskin jgaskin@orrick.com

Justin Myer Lichterman jlichterman@orrick.com

Karen Johnson-McKewan kjohnson-mckewan@orrick.com

Kim Y. Arnone karnone@buchalter.com

Leah Anne Nutting lnutting@orrick.com

Michael Todd Scott tscott@orrick.com

Morgan William Tovey morgantovey@quinnemanuel.com

Raymond A. Cardozo rcardozo@reedsmith.com

Richard C. Darwin rdarwin@buchalter.com

Robert P. Varian rvarian@orrick.com

Ruth Young Kwon rkwon@orrick.com

Dated: January 13, 2010 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:09-cv-02478-JW Document 11 Filed 01/14/10 Page 4 of 4