Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02201/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-02201-15/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Iconix, Inc.
Counter-defendant
Netpickle, Inc.
Counter-claimant
Jia Shen
Counter-claimant
Lance Tokuda
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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 

[Proposed] Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Denying 

Plaintiff’s Objections to Reply Brief 

1

Case No. 4:06-cv-02201-SBA 

pa- 1109414

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

ICONIX INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LANCE TOKUDA, JIA SHEN, NETPICKLE, 

INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 4:06-cv-02201-SBA 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

AND DENYING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTIONS TO REPLY BRIEF 

IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Lance Tokuda, Jia Shen, and 

netPickle, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint, filed on September 19, 2006, 

and Plaintiff Iconix, Inc.’s Objections to Reply Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss, filed on October 18, 2006. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of the 

second, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth claims for relief in Iconix’s Second Amended 

Complaint, and also seeks to dismiss the third claim for relief against Defendants Shen and 

netPickle only. 

Having carefully considered the briefs of the parties and the arguments heard at the 

hearing held on October 31, 2006, the Court issues the following orders: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the third, sixth, seventh, 

ninth, and tenth claims for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure 

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, is DENIED. 

Case 4:06-cv-02201-SBA Document 210 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 2
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 

[Proposed] Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Denying 

Plaintiff’s Objections to Reply Brief 

2

Case No. 4:06-cv-02201-SBA 

pa- 1109414

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the second claim for 

relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief may be granted, is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the eighth claim for 

relief (for a constructive trust) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to 

state a claim upon which relief may be granted is GRANTED without leave to amend; provided, 

however, that Iconix may, within 10 days of the date this Order is entered, file an amended 

complaint that includes any additional allegations that may be necessary to support Plaintiff’s 

request for a constructive trust as a remedy, rather than as an independent claim for relief. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Defendants’ stipulation made in their 

moving papers and confirmed at the hearing on October 31, 2006, Defendants’ sixth counterclaim 

for relief (for constructive trust) be dismissed without leave to amend; provided, however, that 

Defendants may, within 10 days of the date this Order is entered, file amended counterclaims that 

include any additional allegations that may be necessary to support Defendants’ request for a 

constructive trust as a remedy, rather than as an independent claim for relief. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections to Reply Brief in Support of 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 11/9/06 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:06-cv-02201-SBA Document 210 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 2