Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00101/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00101-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amazon.com Inc
Defendant
TainoApp, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAINOAPP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMAZON.COM INC,

Defendant. /

No. C 15-00101 JSW

NOTICE RE PENDING MOTIONS

AND VACATING HEARING

Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. 

Before the case was transferred to this district, Defendant filed a motion for sanctions, pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (the “Rule 11 motion”), which is fully briefed and ripe for

resolution. The Court finds both motions suitable for disposition without oral argument. See

N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and it VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 26, 2015.

In its motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to grant the motion, without imposing conditions. 

Plaintiff also states that it “reserves the right to withdraw [the] motion if it is granted subject to

conditions.” (Docket No. 97-1, Plaintiff’s Mot. at 7:10-11.) 

Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s request to dismiss the case with prejudice, but it

asks the to Court decide the Rule 11 motion before it dismisses the case and to entertain a

motion under 35 U.S.C. section 285 for attorneys’ fees. In its Rule 11 motion, Defendant asks

for sanctions “in an amount equal to its recoverable costs and attorney fees,” but it does not

provide the Court with a specific figure. (Docket No. 38, Def. Mot. at 11.)

Case 4:15-cv-00101-JSW Document 103 Filed 04/22/15 Page 1 of 2
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

2

The Court tentatively concludes Defendant’s Rule 11 motion should be denied. The

Court also is tentatively inclined to grant Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, but on the condition that

Defendant will be permitted to file a motion seeking its attorneys fees and costs by way of a

motion under 35 U.S.C. section 285.

Because the Court is inclined to grant Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss subject to a

condition, the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer and file a joint notice by no later

than May 8, 2015, which sets forth their positions on the following questions:

1. Will Plaintiff withdraw its motion or will it accept the Court’s condition?

2. In light of the Court’s tentative ruling, does Defendant wish to withdraw its Rule

11 motion in favor of a motion under Section 285?

3. Do the parties want the Court to refer this matter to a randomly assigned

Magistrate Judge for purposes of conducting a settlement conference? 

If both parties withdraw their respective motions, they shall appear on June 26, 2015 at

11:00 a.m. for a case management conference. The parties shall file a joint case management

statement by June 19, 2015.

If either party decides not to withdraw their respective motion, that motion will be

deemed submitted as of May 11, 2015, and the Court shall issue a written ruling in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2015 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-00101-JSW Document 103 Filed 04/22/15 Page 2 of 2