Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00268/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00268-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1335 Interpleader Action

---

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

GENOMATICA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ICELANDIC GENOMIC VENTURES

HOLDING, S.A.R.L. et al.,

Defendants,

 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

AND CROSS-CLAIMS.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:12-cv-0268-GPC-BGS

ORDER

(1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION

REGARDING IGVH’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(ECF NO. 77);

(2) GRANTING MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF

No. 74);

(3) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART JOINT

MOTION TO RESCHEDULE

HEARING AND RETITLE

SHARES (ECF NO. 79)

This is an interpleader action in which Genomatica, Inc. (“Genomatica”) asserts

it is an innocent stakeholder in a dispute over the ownership of certain shares of its

stock. (ECF No. 1.) In its Complaint, Genomatica alleged a dispute had arisen

between Iceland Genomic Ventures Holding S.à.R.L. (“IGVH”), on the one hand, and

Iceland Genomic Partners (“IGP”), on the other hand. (Id.)

On May 22, 2012, IGVH filed an answer to Genomatica’s Complaint, also

asserting counterclaims against Genomatica and cross-claims against IGP, Tryggvi

3:12-cv-0268-GPC-BGS

Case 3:12-cv-00268-GPC-BGS Document 80 Filed 07/25/13 Page 1 of 4
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

Petursson (“Petursson”), and Iceland Genomic Venture Partners, S.A. (“IGVP”) (all

three collectively, “Petursson Defendants”). (ECF No. 7.)

On July 10, 2012, IGP filed an answer to Genomatica’s Complaint. (ECF No.

18.) The Petursson Defendants, however, never responded to IGVH’s cross-claims. 

Accordingly, this Court entered default judgment on IGVH’s cross-claims against the

Petursson Defendants on January 31, 2013. (ECF No. 60).

On March 21, the Court granted Genomatica’s Motion to Dismiss & Discharge,

denied IGVH’s initial Motion for Summary Judgment, and granted Genomatica’s

Motion to Dismiss IGVH’s Counterclaims. (ECF No. 64.) In granting Genomatica’s

Motion to Dismiss & Discharge, the Court required Genomatica to deposit with the

Clerk of Court the shares that were actually in dispute, to wit, the 400,000 shares

retitled in the names of the Petursson Defendants. Genomatica deposited said shares

on March 29, 2013. (ECF No. 67.)

The Court further directed IGVH to take the necessary steps to dispose of this

interpleader action. Thus, on April 12, 2013, IGVH filed its second motion for

summary judgment, in which it asks the Court to enter judgment in IGVH’s favor as

to ownership of the disputed Genomatica shares. (ECF No. 74.) IGVH further asked

the Court to Compel Genomatica to deposit with the Court the other 3,100,000 shares

that Genomatica initially asserted were in dispute, but that the Court found were not

actually in dispute given that said shares were retitled to IGVH’s parent company. 

IGVH further asked the Court to compel Genomatica to issue 3,500,000 share

certificates of the same class and series as Genomatica stock certificates Nos. PA 1 and

PA2, reflecting IGVH’s initial purchase of said shares.

On May 3, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion regarding IGVH’s Motion for

Summary Judgment, in which the parties agree that IGVH’s request for an order

compelling the deposit of the undisputed 3,100,000 sharesshould be withdrawn. (ECF

No. 77.) Having considered said joint motion, the Court will grant it.

On July 24, 2013, the parties filed a second joint motion reflecting the parties’

2 3:12-cv-0268-GPC-BGS

Case 3:12-cv-00268-GPC-BGS Document 80 Filed 07/25/13 Page 2 of 4
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

agreement that the Court may order the 400,000 shares deposited with the Court to be

retitled in IGVH’s name, and that IGVH’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment

should be denied as moot. (ECF No. 79.) Having considered said joint motion, the

Court will deny it as moot.

Having considered IGVH’s Motion for Summary Judgment, along with the

parties’ two subsequent joint motions pertaining thereto, the Court finds it appropriate

to grant IGVH’s Motion for Summary Judgment as modified by the parties’ subsequent

joint motions. Given the Court’s entry of default judgment against the Petursson

Defendants and the Court’s dismissal of Genomatica from the interpleader portion of

this case, the Court finds it more appropriate to grant IGVH’s Motion for Summary

Judgment to ensure that ownership of the disputed 400,000 shares is finally resolved

by judgment of the Court, rather than by stipulation of the parties.

Remaining in this case is Genomatica’s Motion for Attorney Fees, (ECF No. 70),

which the Court scheduled for a hearing on August 23, 2013, (ECF No. 71). On July

24, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to move up the hearing on Genomatica’s

Motion for Attorney Fees to August 16, 2013. (ECF No. 79.) Having considered said

joint motion, the court will grant it.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The parties’ Joint Motion Regarding IGHV’s Motion for Summary

Judgment, (ECF No. 77), is GRANTED;

2. IGVH’s Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 74), is GRANTED as

modified by the parties’ stipulation that Genomatica not be compelled to

deposit the 3,100,000 shares of undisputed Genomatica stock;

3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of IGVH on the issue of

ownership of the 400,000 shares of disputed Genomatica stock that were

retitled in the name of the Petursson Defendants;

4. The Clerk of Court shall release the currently deposited 400,000 shares

of Genomatica stock to Genomatica so they may be retitled in IGVH’s

3 3:12-cv-0268-GPC-BGS

Case 3:12-cv-00268-GPC-BGS Document 80 Filed 07/25/13 Page 3 of 4
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

name;

5. Genomatica shall deliver to IGVH, via counsel for IGVH, the 400,000

shares of retitled stock within thirty days of entry of this Order;

6. Within seven days of delivering the retitled stock to IGVH, counsel for

Genomatica shall file a declaration indicating that the retitled stock has

been delivered to IGVH; 

7. The hearing on IGVH’s Motion for Summary Judgment, currently set for

August 23, 2013, is VACATED;

8. The parties’Joint Motion to Reschedule Hearing on Genomatica’s Motion

for Attorney Fees and Retitle the 400,000 Shares Deposited with the

Court, (ECF No. 79), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART;

9. The hearing on Genomatica’s Motion for Attorney Fees is moved up to

August 16, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.

DATED: July 25, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

4 3:12-cv-0268-GPC-BGS

Case 3:12-cv-00268-GPC-BGS Document 80 Filed 07/25/13 Page 4 of 4