Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00918/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00918-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
PHX Lighting, LLC
Defendant
RH US, LLC
Plaintiff
Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc.
Plaintiff
Restoration Hardware, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,

 3:15-cv-00918-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.

PHX LIGHTING, LLC, a Louisiana 

limited liability company,

Defendant.

 Civil Case No.: 3:15-cv-00918-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 Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference (Doc. No. 5) 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 copyright

infringement arising under the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended, 17 U.S.C. § 101,

et seq., and for patent infringement arising under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et 

 _____________

Case 3:15-cv-00918-EDL Document 15 Filed 05/21/15 Page 1 of 7
2 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,

 3:15-cv-00918-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

seq. Defendant was served on March 24, 2015. (Doc. No. 11.) To date, however, 

Defendant has not answered or otherwise responded to the Complaint and the time 

to do so has passed.

2. Facts:

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

holds design patents for its furniture designs and copyright registrations for

photographs of its renowned products. Defendant sells knockoff RH products,

violating RH’s patents, and is using RH’s copyrighted photographs to advertise,

promote and sell those knockoffs. After several attempts to resolve this matter with

Defendant, to no avail, RH brought this action for damages and other appropriate

relief.

3. Legal Issues:

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

 RH’s ownership of its copyrights;

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

 Whether Defendant has infringed RH’s copyrights; and

 The amount of damages Defendant should pay RH.

4. Pending And Anticipated Motions:

No motions are currently pending. RH expects to file a motion for entry of

default and a motion for default judgment.

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 not appeared or

contact RH, 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

Case 3:15-cv-00918-EDL Document 15 Filed 05/21/15 Page 2 of 7
3 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,

 3:15-cv-00918-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

in this action.

7. Disclosures:

Because Defendant has not appeared, the parties have not conducted a Rule

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

8. Discovery:

Because Defendant has not appeared, the parties have not conducted a Rule

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;

Case 3:15-cv-00918-EDL Document 15 Filed 05/21/15 Page 3 of 7
4 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,

 3:15-cv-00918-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

 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

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 Copyright Act and the 

Patent Act. If necessary, RH may opt for statutory damages under the Copyright 

Act. 17 U.S.C. §504(c).

Case 3:15-cv-00918-EDL Document 15 Filed 05/21/15 Page 4 of 7
5 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,

 3:15-cv-00918-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

12. Settlement and ADR:

RH has already attempted to resolve this case informally with Defendant

numerous times, without avail. Because Defendant has not appeared, the parties

have not engaged in discussions regarding ADR.

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.

15. Narrowing of Issues:

Because Defendant has not appeared, the parties have not discussed narrowing

the issues.

16. Expedited Trial Procedure:

Because Defendant has not appeared, the parties have not discussed whether

this case can be handled under the Expedited Trial Procedures.

17. Scheduling:

Because Defendant has not appeared, 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

Case 3:15-cv-00918-EDL Document 15 Filed 05/21/15 Page 5 of 7
6 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,

 3:15-cv-00918-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

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 of the status of this case, RH requests that the Case Management

Conference be continued for sixty (60) days.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 19, 2015 By: /s/ Michael J. McCue

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-00918-EDL Document 15 Filed 05/21/15 Page 6 of 7
7 Plaintiffs’ Case Management Statement,

 3:15-cv-00918-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 May 19, 2015, the Court hereby continues the Case 

Management Conference for this case for 60 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

 July 21 ______ 10:00 am May 21, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-00918-EDL Document 15 Filed 05/21/15 Page 7 of 7