Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00892/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00892-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
RH US, LLC
Plaintiff
Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc.
Plaintiff
Restoration Hardware, Inc.
Plaintiff
Stanislaus Funding, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

1 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,

3:15-cv-00892-EDL

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

3993 Howard Hughes ParkwaySuite 600Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

MICHAEL J. MCCUE (SBN: 296425)

Email: MMcCue@LRRLaw.com

AARON D. JOHNSON (SBN: 261747)

Email: ADJohnson@LRRLAW.com

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP

4300 Bohannon Drive

Menlo Park, CA 94025

(650) 391-1380 (Tel.)

(702) 391-1395 (Fax)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.

RH US, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.,

a Delaware corporation, and RH US,

LLC, a Delaware limited liability

company,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

STANISLAUS FUNDING, INC. d/b/a

PATIO WORLD, a California

corporation,

Defendant.

Civil Case No.: 3:15-cv-00892-EDL

The Honorable Magistrate Judge

Elizabeth D. Laporte

PLAINTIFFS RESTORATION

HARDWARE, INC. AND RH US,

LLC’S CASE MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER

Plaintiffs Restoration Hardware, Inc. and RH US, LLC (collectively, “RH”)

hereby submit this Case Management Statement and Proposed Order pursuant to the

Court’s Case Management Order (Doc. No. 17) and Civil Local Rule 16-9.

1. Jurisdiction and Service:

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 because this action involves claims for patent infringement

in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.

As indicated in the previous Case Management Statement (Doc. No. 17), after

Defendant was notified of this matter, the parties came to a general framework for

Case 3:15-cv-00892-EDL Document 21 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 7
2 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,

3:15-cv-00892-EDL

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

3993 Howard Hughes ParkwaySuite 600Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

settlement. The parties have now exchanged drafts of the settlement agreement and

are in the final stages of completing the written settlement agreements. RH fully

expects this case to settled within the next two weeks. To facilitate settlement and

conserve costs, Defendant has not been formally served.

2. Facts:

RH is an innovative and popular luxury brand for home furnishings. RH

holds design patents for its furniture designs. RH alleges that Defendant sells

products that violate RH’s patents. RH brought this action for damages and other

appropriate relief.

3. Legal Issues:

 RH’s ownership of the patents-in-suit;

 Whether Defendant has infringed the patents-in-suit; and

 The amount of damages Defendant should pay RH.

4. Pending And Anticipated Motions:

None.

5. Anticipated Pleading Amendments:

None.

6. Evidence Preservation:

RH’s counsel certifies that it has reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the

Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. Because Defendant has not been

served, there has not been a conference held regarding reasonable and proportionate

steps taken to preserve electronic evidence. However, RH confirms that it has taken

steps to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action.

7. Disclosures:

Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not conducted a Rule

26(f) conference and have not discussed a proposed discovery plan.

8. Discovery:

Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not conducted a Rule

Case 3:15-cv-00892-EDL Document 21 Filed 07/17/15 Page 2 of 7
3 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,

3:15-cv-00892-EDL

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

3993 Howard Hughes ParkwaySuite 600Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

26(f) conference and have not discussed a proposed discovery plan.

9. Class Actions:

Not applicable.

10. Related Cases:

RH has filed several enforcement actions in this district against other

infringers of RH’s intellectual property:

 Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. South Sea Rattan Furniture, Inc.,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00891-EDL;

 Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Stanislaus Funding, Inc. et al.,

Case No. 3:15-00892-EDL;

 Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Chicago Wicker & Trading Co.,

Case No. 3:15-00894-EDL;

 Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. Heng Zhong,

Case No. 4:15-cv-00937-KAW;

 Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. HFONC, Inc., et al.,

Case No. 4:15-cv-00954-DMR;

 Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. Light in the Box Ltd.,

Case No. 4:15-cv-00924-KAW;

 Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. Patio Shoppers, Inc.,

Case No. 4:15-cv-00936-DMR;

 Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. PHX Lighting, LLC,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00918-EDL;

 Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Topson Lighting, Ltd.,

Case No. 5:15-cv-00938-HRL; and

 Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. HomeLava Ltd.,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00926-EDL.

In an order dated May 12, 2015, in Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. South

Sea Rattan Furniture, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00891-EDL, (Doc. 13) Magistrate

Case 3:15-cv-00892-EDL Document 21 Filed 07/17/15 Page 3 of 7
4 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,

3:15-cv-00892-EDL

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

3993 Howard Hughes ParkwaySuite 600Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte determined that the following cases are related under

local Civil Rule 3-12:

 Restoration Hardware, Inc., et al. v. South Sea Rattan Furniture, Inc.,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00891-EDL;

 Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Stanislaus Funding, Inc. et al.,

Case No. 3:15-00892-EDL; and

 Restoration Hardware, Inc. et al. v. Chicago Wicker & Trading Co.,

Case No. 3:15-00894-EDL.

Each of these cases have been assigned to Magistrate Judge Laporte. With

respect to the other cases, while RH does not believe they are related cases under

Civil Local Rule 3-12 because they involve different defendants selling different

products, RH does not oppose assignment to a single judge. See, e.g., EIT Holdings

LLC v. Yelp!, Inc., No. C 10–05623 WHA, 2011 WL 2192820, 2 (N.D. Cal. May 12,

2011) (“Given the disparity in defendants, websites, and other disparate issues

discussed herein like damages, willfulness, and discovery supervision, it is worth

adding that the allegations against each defendant would not be related under our

civil local rules even if brought here as separate actions. See Civil L.R. 3–

12(a)(2)”).

11. Relief:

RH seeks both injunctive relief and damages under the Patent Act.

12. Settlement and ADR:

The parties are engaged in informal settlement discussions.

13. Consent to Magistrate For All Purposes:

RH has consented to the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case for all

purposes.

14. Other References:

This case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special master,

or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Case 3:15-cv-00892-EDL Document 21 Filed 07/17/15 Page 4 of 7
5 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,

3:15-cv-00892-EDL

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

3993 Howard Hughes ParkwaySuite 600Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

15. Narrowing of Issues:

Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not discussed

narrowing the issues.

16. Expedited Trial Procedure:

Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not discussed

whether this case can be handled under the Expedited Trial Procedures.

17. Scheduling:

Because Defendant has not been served, the parties have not discussed

discovery scheduling.

18. Trial:

RH did not demand a jury trial. RH preliminarily estimates that a bench trial

would require between 3 to 5 trial days.

19. Disclosure of Non Party Interested Entities or Persons:

RH has filed its certification of interested entities or persons. Pursuant to

Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Restoration Hardware,

Inc. and RH US, LLC are each direct or indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of

Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc., a publicly traded Delaware corporation.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15, the undersigned certifies that, as of this

date, other than the named parties, there are no entities or persons who have a

financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding,

or any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of

the proceeding.

20. Professional Conduct:

RH’s counsel of record has reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct

for the Northern District of California.

21. Other Matters That Would Facilitate a Just, Speedy and

Inexpensive Disposition of this Matter:

Because the parties are actively attempting to finalize a settlement, RH

Case 3:15-cv-00892-EDL Document 21 Filed 07/17/15 Page 5 of 7
6 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,

3:15-cv-00892-EDL

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

3993 Howard Hughes ParkwaySuite 600Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

requests that the Case Management Conference be continued for thirty (30) days.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 16, 2015 By: /s/ Aaron D. Johnson

MICHAEL J. MCCUE

AARON D. JOHNSON

Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP

3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600

Las Vegas, Nevada 89169-5996

(702) 949-8200 (Tel.)

(702) 949-8398 (Fax)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.

RH US, LLC.

Case 3:15-cv-00892-EDL Document 21 Filed 07/17/15 Page 6 of 7
7 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,

3:15-cv-00892-EDL

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

3993 Howard Hughes ParkwaySuite 600Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

Based on the PLAINTIFFS RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC. AND

RH US, LLC’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER filed by Plaintiffs on July 16, 2015, the Court hereby continues the Case

Management Conference for this case for 30 days until _________________, 2015

at ______ am/pm. All related deadlines under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16

and 25 and applicable case management and discovery local rules and standing

orders shall be continued to accord with the new conference date.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated:

By: ____________________________________

The Honorable Magistrate Judge

Elizabeth D. Laporte

August 18 10:00 ___ July 17, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-00892-EDL Document 21 Filed 07/17/15 Page 7 of 7