1- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE

OF RELATED CASES

LEGAL126633709.2

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

Erick J. Haynie, OSB No. 982482

EHaynie@perkinscoie.com

Gabrielle D. Richards, OSB No. 114992

GRichards@perkinscoie.com

PERKINS COIE LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Telephone: 503.727.2000

Facsimile: 503.727.2222

Attorneys for Plaintiff

LNV Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

LNV CORPORATION, a Nevada 

corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENISE SUBRAMANIAM,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:14-cv-01836-MO

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE 

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION

TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE

OF RELATED CASES

Plaintiff LNV Corporation (“LNV”) hereby responds to the “Notice of Related Cases”

filed by defendant Denise Subramaniam (“Defendant”). For the reasons set forth below, LNV 

respectfully requests that the Court (1) strike Defendant’s “Notice of Related Cases” or, if treated 

as a motion, that it be denied and (2) deny Defendant’s motion to consolidate, to the extent that 

such a motion has been pleaded within Defendant’s “Notice of Related Cases.”

//

//

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 62 Filed 06/23/15 Page 1 of 4
2- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE

OF RELATED CASES

LEGAL126633709.2

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s latest conspiracy-oriented pleading attempts to provide the Court with notice 

of several “directly related” cases from this and other jurisdictions and seeks consolidation of 

these “related cases” for the limited purpose of compelling LNV to produce original notes. 

Defendant cites a myriad of procedural rules and statutes in support of her pleading — chiefly

“RCFC 42.1,” “18 U.S. Code § 3663A” and “Federal Rule 40.2(a)(1)” — but these authorities 

are inapplicable to this case. In the end, Defendant’s pleading is nothing more than an illogical 

recitation of empty allegations intended to promote a theory that has no basis in law or fact.

A. Defendant Has Failed to Articulate a Procedural Basis for Her “Notice”

Defendant purports to file her “Notice of Related Cases” pursuant to “Federal Rule 

40.2(a)(1),” yet there is no such rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern this 

case. LNV assumes that Defendant is referring to Rule 40.2(a)(1) (related cases) of the Rules of 

the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which only govern procedure in that tribunal.1

 Defendant thus 

has not articulated a procedural basis for her “Notice of Related Cases.” For this reason, the

“Notice of Related Cases” should be stricken or, if treated as a motion, it should be denied.

B. Defendant Has Failed to Articulate a Procedural Basis for “Consolidation”

Similarly, Defendant seeks to consolidate the “related cases” pursuant to “RCFC 42.1.”

Here again, there is no such rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules of the U.S. 

Court of Federal Claims include a Rule 42.1 (motions to consolidate) but, as discussed above, 

those rules are inapplicable in this Court.

2

 Defendant also appears to seek consolidation and/or 

restitution pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 3663A, which deals with restitution to victims in criminal 

 1 RCFC 40.2 has no counterpart in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2 RCFC 42.1 has no counterpart in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 62 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 4
3- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE

OF RELATED CASES

LEGAL126633709.2

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

cases. This case, however, is a civil action and 18 U.S. Code § 3663A is inapplicable. Because 

Defendant has not articulated a procedural basis for consolidation, her motion should be denied.3

IV. CONCLUSION

LNV requests that the Court (1) strike Defendant’s “Notice of Related Cases” or, if 

treated as a motion, that it be denied and (2) deny Defendant’s motion to consolidate, to the 

extent that such a motion has been pleaded within Defendant’s “Notice of Related Cases.”

DATED: June 23, 2015 PERKINS COIE LLP

By:/s/ Gabrielle D. Richards

Gabrielle D. Richards, OSB No. 114992

GRichards@perkinscoie.com

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Telephone: 503.727.2000

Facsimile: 503.727.2222

 3 FRCP 42, which governs consolidations generally, applies to multiple actions before 

one court. However, the “related cases” of which Defendant purports to give notice are not 

actions pending before this Court and Defendant has not articulated, let alone established, any 

basis to consolidate the present action with the “related cases.” It is also worth noting that one of 

the “related cases,” Subramaniam v. Beal, No. 3:12-cv-1681-MO, is one where this Court has 

dismissed with prejudice all of Defendant’s claims as to all defendants.

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 62 Filed 06/23/15 Page 3 of 4
PAGE 1- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

LEGAL126633709.2

Perkins Coie LLP

1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor

Portland, OR 97209-4128

Phone: 503.727.2000

Fax: 503.727.2222

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I served the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM IN 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF RELATED CASES on:

Denise Subramaniam

13865 SW Walker Rd.

Beaverton, OR 97005

Defendant

by depositing a copy in the U.S. Mail in a sealed postage-prepaid envelope and deposited with

the United States Postal Service at Portland, Oregon on the date set forth below.

DATED: June 23, 2015 /s/ Gabrielle D. Richards

Gabrielle D. Richards, OSB No. 114992

GRichards@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff

LNV Corporation

Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 62 Filed 06/23/15 Page 4 of 4