Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00530/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-00530-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

1

Case No.: 14-CV-00530-LHK

ORDER LIFTING STAY, DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS, VACATING HEARING ON MOTION 

TO DISMISS, AND ORDERING A RESPONSE RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HOAI DANG, on behalf of himself and all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 14-CV-00530-LHK 

ORDER LIFTING STAY, DENYING AS 

MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS, 

VACATING HEARING ON MOTION 

TO DISMISS, AND ORDERING A 

RESPONSE RE MOTION TO COMPEL

ARBITRATION

On January 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed proof of service on Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., 

Ltd. in Korea. ECF No. 36. Pursuant to the Court’s order amending the order staying 

proceedings, ECF No. 34, the Court hereby lifts the stay.

On February 9, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to compel 

arbitration. ECF Nos. 37, 39. In response, Plaintiff indicated on February 23, 2015, that he would 

be filing an amended complaint on or before March 2, 2015, that “will moot Defendants’ 

Motions.” ECF No. 41 at 2. On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed the amended complaint. ECF No. 

44. Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES as moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss and 

Case 5:14-cv-00530-LHK Document 46 Filed 03/16/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 14-CV-00530-LHK

ORDER LIFTING STAY, DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS, VACATING HEARING ON MOTION 

TO DISMISS, AND ORDERING A RESPONSE RE MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

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

VACATES the hearing on that motion set for June 11, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. See Baker v. Lewis, No. 

C 11-3493 LHK PR, 2012 WL 1932867, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2012) (denying as moot 

defendants’ motion to dismiss the original complaint “[b]ecause Plaintiff’s amended complaint is 

the operative complaint”).

Defendants never filed a reply in support of their motion to compel arbitration. As a result, 

the Court ORDERS Defendants to file a response not to exceed two pages in length by March 18, 

2015, at 5:00 p.m. indicating whether Defendants agree that Plaintiff’s filing of an amended 

complaint also moots Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-00530-LHK Document 46 Filed 03/16/15 Page 2 of 2