Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02419/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02419-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
International Business Machines Corporation
Defendant
Yakov Reznik
Plaintiff

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YAKOV REZNIK,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02419-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Re: Dkt. No. 8

On June 8, 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to strike the 

plaintiff’s complaint. (Dkt. No. 8.) In opposition thereto, the plaintiff acknowledged that he

“could certainly add more facts if the Court deems that appropriate” and noted that his counsel

was in the process of meeting and conferring with the defendant “regarding narrowing or 

eliminating entirely all issues raised by Defendants [sic] by way of an amendment to the 

Complaint to avoid unneeded motion practice before this Court.” (Dkt. No. 15 at 7, 11.)1 In light 

of these apparent concessions by the plaintiff that at least some of the defendant’s arguments have 

merit, and his intention to attempt to remedy the purported insufficiencies such that “all issues” 

raised in the present motion might no longer be in dispute after a First Amended Complaint 

(“FAC”) is filed, the Court GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES the complaint WITH LEAVE TO 

AMEND. Plaintiff shall file an FAC within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2015

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 

1

The Court has determined that the motion is appropriate for decision without oral 

argument, as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. See 

also Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th 

Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the hearing set for July 14, 2015 is VACATED.

Case 4:15-cv-02419-YGR Document 19 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 1