Order granting the Vietnamese corporation VNG's motion to dismiss for lack of specific jurisdiction in Lang Van v. VNG Corp, C.D. Cal., Case No. SACV 14-0100 AG
Fisker's lawsuit against insurance companykatiefehren
A lawsuit filed by Fisker against insurance company XL for denying its claim when 338 Karmas were lost in Sandy flooding, which had a value of $33 million.
The petitioning creditors filed a motion requesting permission to file redacted versions of confidential pleadings and exhibits under seal in bankruptcy proceedings against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. The pleadings and exhibits contain confidential commercial information from credit agreements. The motion argues that public disclosure of this confidential information would violate the credit agreements.
Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing Jul...Angela Kaaihue
This document is a memorandum filed by Angela Kaaihue and Yong Fryer in opposition to a motion for summary judgment filed by Newtown Estates Community Association (NECA). It argues that NECA's motion should be denied for several reasons: (1) Petitioners' property is not part of Newtown Estates and is therefore not subject to NECA's rules; (2) there are errors in the property's title and warranty deed regarding its inclusion in Newtown Estates; and (3) Petitioners have developer rights over the property according to the master declaration. The memorandum also notes that the land court has jurisdiction over NECA's claims, as determined in a previous hearing.
Establishing violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse ActDavid Sweigert
This document is a court opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding David Nosal's appeal of his criminal convictions. The court affirmed Nosal's convictions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for unauthorized access to his former employer's computer system after his credentials were revoked. It also affirmed his convictions for trade secret theft under the Economic Espionage Act. However, the court vacated part of the restitution order and remanded for reconsideration of the attorneys' fees award.
This document is a motion filed in a US bankruptcy court requesting permission to file an unredacted version of a response under seal. It summarizes that the response contains sensitive commercial information about the debtors' financial condition and restructuring negotiations. The debtors argue the information could harm ongoing negotiations and business operations if disclosed publicly. They seek to file the unredacted version under seal and make it available only to specific parties.
This letter from King & Spalding LLP to members of an arbitration tribunal requests interim measures in an ongoing arbitration between Chevron Corporation, Texaco Petroleum Company, and the Republic of Ecuador. It summarizes recent developments in related litigation in Ecuadorian courts, including the issuance of an order finalizing the evidence period and allowing for imminent judgment, as well as newly discovered evidence of plans by opposing parties to immediately attach assets and disrupt Chevron's global operations. The letter argues interim measures are urgently needed to protect the arbitration tribunal's jurisdiction and ability to provide meaningful relief by suspending enforceability of any imminent Ecuadorian court judgment.
The Alleged Debtors filed a motion requesting the court's permission to file an unredacted version of their Motion to Transfer Venue under seal. They argue the unredacted version contains sensitive commercial information regarding their financial condition and restructuring negotiations that could harm their business if disclosed publicly. The Alleged Debtors state they have publicly filed a redacted version, and the unredacted version would only be available to the court and specific receiving parties subject to confidentiality restrictions. They believe this balancing of interests appropriately protects their sensitive information while still allowing for consideration of the merits of their transfer motion.
The document discusses two methods for expediting patent rights: (1) early publication of provisional applications to obtain provisional rights, and (2) filing a petition to make an application special to receive early examination. It provides details on the requirements and procedures for both approaches, including how to request early publication, the conditions that warrant special status, and the accelerated examination process.
Fisker's lawsuit against insurance companykatiefehren
A lawsuit filed by Fisker against insurance company XL for denying its claim when 338 Karmas were lost in Sandy flooding, which had a value of $33 million.
The petitioning creditors filed a motion requesting permission to file redacted versions of confidential pleadings and exhibits under seal in bankruptcy proceedings against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. The pleadings and exhibits contain confidential commercial information from credit agreements. The motion argues that public disclosure of this confidential information would violate the credit agreements.
Angela Kaaihue, Motion in Opposition to NECA's Summary Judgement- Hearing Jul...Angela Kaaihue
This document is a memorandum filed by Angela Kaaihue and Yong Fryer in opposition to a motion for summary judgment filed by Newtown Estates Community Association (NECA). It argues that NECA's motion should be denied for several reasons: (1) Petitioners' property is not part of Newtown Estates and is therefore not subject to NECA's rules; (2) there are errors in the property's title and warranty deed regarding its inclusion in Newtown Estates; and (3) Petitioners have developer rights over the property according to the master declaration. The memorandum also notes that the land court has jurisdiction over NECA's claims, as determined in a previous hearing.
Establishing violations of Computer Fraud and Abuse ActDavid Sweigert
This document is a court opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding David Nosal's appeal of his criminal convictions. The court affirmed Nosal's convictions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for unauthorized access to his former employer's computer system after his credentials were revoked. It also affirmed his convictions for trade secret theft under the Economic Espionage Act. However, the court vacated part of the restitution order and remanded for reconsideration of the attorneys' fees award.
This document is a motion filed in a US bankruptcy court requesting permission to file an unredacted version of a response under seal. It summarizes that the response contains sensitive commercial information about the debtors' financial condition and restructuring negotiations. The debtors argue the information could harm ongoing negotiations and business operations if disclosed publicly. They seek to file the unredacted version under seal and make it available only to specific parties.
This letter from King & Spalding LLP to members of an arbitration tribunal requests interim measures in an ongoing arbitration between Chevron Corporation, Texaco Petroleum Company, and the Republic of Ecuador. It summarizes recent developments in related litigation in Ecuadorian courts, including the issuance of an order finalizing the evidence period and allowing for imminent judgment, as well as newly discovered evidence of plans by opposing parties to immediately attach assets and disrupt Chevron's global operations. The letter argues interim measures are urgently needed to protect the arbitration tribunal's jurisdiction and ability to provide meaningful relief by suspending enforceability of any imminent Ecuadorian court judgment.
The Alleged Debtors filed a motion requesting the court's permission to file an unredacted version of their Motion to Transfer Venue under seal. They argue the unredacted version contains sensitive commercial information regarding their financial condition and restructuring negotiations that could harm their business if disclosed publicly. The Alleged Debtors state they have publicly filed a redacted version, and the unredacted version would only be available to the court and specific receiving parties subject to confidentiality restrictions. They believe this balancing of interests appropriately protects their sensitive information while still allowing for consideration of the merits of their transfer motion.
The document discusses two methods for expediting patent rights: (1) early publication of provisional applications to obtain provisional rights, and (2) filing a petition to make an application special to receive early examination. It provides details on the requirements and procedures for both approaches, including how to request early publication, the conditions that warrant special status, and the accelerated examination process.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Copy of Order issued by U.S. District Court suspending AB 219, a new statute which made deliveries of ready-mix concrete subject to California Prevailing Wage Law.
This document is a report and recommendation from a United States District Court regarding a patent infringement case between Two-Way Media Ltd. and Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Services Corp., and Verizon Online LLC. The court provides background on the parties, patents in question, plaintiff's allegations of infringement related to Verizon's TV Everywhere streaming services, and the standard for reviewing a motion to dismiss. The court will recommend granting Verizon's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim of joint infringement under the requirements that all steps of a method patent be attributable to the same defendant.
This motion seeks to compel judgment debtor Stephen Gaggero to produce documents in response to a request for production from the judgment creditors Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Stephen Ray Garcia, Stephen Harris, and Andre Jardini (KPC) related to enforcing their judgment. KPC argues that Gaggero's responses improperly withheld relevant documents and asserted invalid claims of privilege. KPC requests the court order production of the requested documents, award $10,840 in attorney fees for bringing this motion, and sanction Gaggero's attorney $5,000 for obstructing discovery.
Doc723 motion to vacate claims & stay further proceedingmalp2009
The Chapter 11 Trustee filed a motion to vacate claims orders and stay further proceedings related to two claims filed against the bankruptcy estate. The claims, totaling $275,000 each, were based on promissory notes related to the debtor's purchase of a company called Premier. After the claims orders were entered allowing the claims in part, an indictment was filed describing how organized crime figures took control of the debtor and looted it for their personal benefit through fraudulent transactions like the one involving Premier. The indictment revealed that one of the claimants, Learned, was controlled by one of the crime figures and was used to defraud the debtor and launder money as part of the scheme.
This document is an order from a United States District Court regarding motions to dismiss filed by defendants Darren Chaker and Nicole Chaker in a civil RICO lawsuit brought by plaintiffs Scott McMillan and The McMillan Law Firm. The order summarizes the allegations in the plaintiffs' amended complaint, which claims the defendants engaged in a pattern of extortion, harassment, and other unlawful acts as part of a RICO enterprise. The order analyzes the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), considering whether the plaintiffs have adequately alleged predicate acts of racketeering, cognizable damages, and other elements of RICO and state law claims.
This landmark case is known as HUBCO Case in which the Supreme Court of Pakistan Hold that in case of allegations corruption and bribery, the National Courts are obliged to try the case and hence, can't be referred to Arbitration.
NVIDIA has countersued Samsung in the U.S. District Court in Virginia, citing four graphics patents beyond the seven cited in previous ITC and Delaware cases. The four patents are described in this latest filing.
The document contains the morning exam session from April 2003 with multiple choice questions and answers regarding patent law and procedures. Question 1 discusses requirements for actual reduction to practice. Question 2 addresses consequences for failing to notify the office of a foreign filing after submitting a non-publication request. Question 3 regards providing a reply stating that required information is unknown or not readily available.
This document is a letter from Plaintiffs' counsel opposing a motion to dismiss from Defendant Unigestion Holding. The letter argues that the complaint provides sufficient details about Unigestion's involvement in an alleged conspiracy to illegally impose fees on phone calls and money transfers to Haiti in violation of antitrust laws. The letter cites evidence from a New York Times article and videos showing an agreement was made between Unigestion and other defendants to fix prices. The letter also argues the complaint meets pleading standards and that dismissal would be improper at this stage.
This document is a motion filed in United States Bankruptcy Court requesting an expedited hearing for a separate motion to file certain documents under seal. The motion provides background on involuntary bankruptcy petitions recently filed against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. It argues that expedited relief is necessary due to exigent circumstances, including the risk of harm to creditors from ongoing conflicts of interest if relief is not granted quickly. The motion requests that the court schedule a hearing on the separate motion to seal within two days and set the objection deadline on the same expedited schedule.
The document discusses differing interpretations of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel between district courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Currently, district courts interpret estoppel narrowly under Shaw Industries, only applying it to grounds instituted in IPR. In contrast, the PTAB broadly interprets estoppel to also include grounds that reasonably could have been raised in IPR. The Federal Circuit's guidance is needed to clarify the scope of estoppel and better align interpretations with legislative intent.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this issue:
Evidence of Deliberate Decision to Withhold Reference Required for Inequitable Conduct
Licensee Bears Burden of Proving Non-Infringemet in Some Circumstances
No Inequitable Conduct for Failure to Disclose Litigation Involving Parent of Application
Mere Possibility of Allegedly Infringing Activity Insufficient for Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction
Doctrine of Equivalents Is Available for “Substantially All” Limitation
Court Finds Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claim Unreasonable
Patent bar practice questions april 2003Bradley Sands
The document contains a 15 question multiple choice exam from the USPTO regarding patent law procedures and rules. The questions cover topics such as proper Markush groups, responses to office actions, fees and deadlines, common ownership under 103, and when a final rejection is proper. The exam tests knowledge of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP).
This document is the outline I generated from the online tests available from the USPTO Patent Bar. I didn't pay for an expensive test prep to study for the patent bar. Instead, I went through the freely available test questions from 2002 and 2003, found all of the answers in the MPEP, and put the Q&As into manageable slides. Thus, the day before the exam, I was able to easily go through 200+ questions in only a few hours and go through this entire Outline in about an hour. Then, the day of the exam, I went through this outline in the morning. I took and "preliminarily" passed the patent bar on August 11, 2016. Hopefully this content will help you study for and confidently take the patent bar.
Coalition Forum: Legal Implications of Offshore DrillingAdele Ramos
The document discusses several legal issues with Belize's current laws and regulations regarding offshore drilling. It notes that Belize's legal system does not offer sufficient protection for private individuals in the event of environmental damages from drilling. The Petroleum Act gives too much power to the Minister and lacks requirements for consultation, environmental protection plans, and adherence to international standards. Contracts awarded by the Minister also lack necessary safeguards. Overall, Belize's laws and oversight of offshore drilling contracts are insufficient to protect citizens and the environment from potential harms.
Just Intellectuals Newsletter (March 2017 ed)Kristy Downing
The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Life Technologies v. Promega regarding the interpretation of "substantial portion" under 35 USC §271(f)(1). The Court held that (1) "substantial portion" refers to a quantitative, not qualitative, measure and (2) exporting a single component is insufficient to create liability without being tailored for infringement under §271(f)(2). However, the Court did not specify how many components would need to be exported to be considered a "substantial portion."
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
• Judgment of Infringement Entered as Sanction
• Patent Exhaustion Does Not Apply to Harvested Seeds
• Judges Disagree on § 101 Standards
• Litigation Is Not a Domestic Industry
Anatomy of a Civil Appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme CourtNicole Benjamin
This document outlines the anatomy and process of a civil appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. It details the key steps including filing a notice of appeal within 20 days of judgment, requesting transcripts within 20 days, transmitting the record within 60 days, submitting Rule 12A statements, participating in a pre-briefing conference, submitting briefs or supplemental statements depending on the calendar assignment, participating in oral arguments ranging from 10-30 minutes depending on the calendar, and awaiting a decision which is typically released by July 1 each year. The process involves pre-docketing and post-docketing requirements and procedures.
This document is an objection filed by the United States Trustee to motions filed by Petitioning Creditors and Alleged Debtors to seal certain documents filed with the court. The U.S. Trustee does not oppose sealing documents pending a ruling on whether the bankruptcy cases will proceed, but argues that any sealing should end if the court finds cause to open bankruptcy cases, as the information would then become public. The U.S. Trustee asserts that bankruptcy law favors public disclosure of information relevant to creditors and parties in interest.
Anhing v. Viet Phu - Order denying defendant's motion for attorney's feesRobert Scott Lawrence
Order denying defendant Viet Phu's post-trial motion for attorneys fees, noting that under the Lanham Act a prevailing defendant is only entitled to fees in exceptional cases.
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filedPruvit
http://meta.pruvitnow.com Pruvit Ventures has filed a lawsuit against ForeverGreen International. Pruvit is shipping product today. For detailed info check Troy Dooly's post and video: http://mlmhelpdesk.com/breaking-mlm-news-pruvit-ventures-files-federal-lawsuit-against-forevergreen-aka-fg-express/
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Copy of Order issued by U.S. District Court suspending AB 219, a new statute which made deliveries of ready-mix concrete subject to California Prevailing Wage Law.
This document is a report and recommendation from a United States District Court regarding a patent infringement case between Two-Way Media Ltd. and Verizon Communications Inc., Verizon Services Corp., and Verizon Online LLC. The court provides background on the parties, patents in question, plaintiff's allegations of infringement related to Verizon's TV Everywhere streaming services, and the standard for reviewing a motion to dismiss. The court will recommend granting Verizon's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim of joint infringement under the requirements that all steps of a method patent be attributable to the same defendant.
This motion seeks to compel judgment debtor Stephen Gaggero to produce documents in response to a request for production from the judgment creditors Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Stephen Ray Garcia, Stephen Harris, and Andre Jardini (KPC) related to enforcing their judgment. KPC argues that Gaggero's responses improperly withheld relevant documents and asserted invalid claims of privilege. KPC requests the court order production of the requested documents, award $10,840 in attorney fees for bringing this motion, and sanction Gaggero's attorney $5,000 for obstructing discovery.
Doc723 motion to vacate claims & stay further proceedingmalp2009
The Chapter 11 Trustee filed a motion to vacate claims orders and stay further proceedings related to two claims filed against the bankruptcy estate. The claims, totaling $275,000 each, were based on promissory notes related to the debtor's purchase of a company called Premier. After the claims orders were entered allowing the claims in part, an indictment was filed describing how organized crime figures took control of the debtor and looted it for their personal benefit through fraudulent transactions like the one involving Premier. The indictment revealed that one of the claimants, Learned, was controlled by one of the crime figures and was used to defraud the debtor and launder money as part of the scheme.
This document is an order from a United States District Court regarding motions to dismiss filed by defendants Darren Chaker and Nicole Chaker in a civil RICO lawsuit brought by plaintiffs Scott McMillan and The McMillan Law Firm. The order summarizes the allegations in the plaintiffs' amended complaint, which claims the defendants engaged in a pattern of extortion, harassment, and other unlawful acts as part of a RICO enterprise. The order analyzes the defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), considering whether the plaintiffs have adequately alleged predicate acts of racketeering, cognizable damages, and other elements of RICO and state law claims.
This landmark case is known as HUBCO Case in which the Supreme Court of Pakistan Hold that in case of allegations corruption and bribery, the National Courts are obliged to try the case and hence, can't be referred to Arbitration.
NVIDIA has countersued Samsung in the U.S. District Court in Virginia, citing four graphics patents beyond the seven cited in previous ITC and Delaware cases. The four patents are described in this latest filing.
The document contains the morning exam session from April 2003 with multiple choice questions and answers regarding patent law and procedures. Question 1 discusses requirements for actual reduction to practice. Question 2 addresses consequences for failing to notify the office of a foreign filing after submitting a non-publication request. Question 3 regards providing a reply stating that required information is unknown or not readily available.
This document is a letter from Plaintiffs' counsel opposing a motion to dismiss from Defendant Unigestion Holding. The letter argues that the complaint provides sufficient details about Unigestion's involvement in an alleged conspiracy to illegally impose fees on phone calls and money transfers to Haiti in violation of antitrust laws. The letter cites evidence from a New York Times article and videos showing an agreement was made between Unigestion and other defendants to fix prices. The letter also argues the complaint meets pleading standards and that dismissal would be improper at this stage.
This document is a motion filed in United States Bankruptcy Court requesting an expedited hearing for a separate motion to file certain documents under seal. The motion provides background on involuntary bankruptcy petitions recently filed against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. It argues that expedited relief is necessary due to exigent circumstances, including the risk of harm to creditors from ongoing conflicts of interest if relief is not granted quickly. The motion requests that the court schedule a hearing on the separate motion to seal within two days and set the objection deadline on the same expedited schedule.
The document discusses differing interpretations of inter partes review (IPR) estoppel between district courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Currently, district courts interpret estoppel narrowly under Shaw Industries, only applying it to grounds instituted in IPR. In contrast, the PTAB broadly interprets estoppel to also include grounds that reasonably could have been raised in IPR. The Federal Circuit's guidance is needed to clarify the scope of estoppel and better align interpretations with legislative intent.
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this issue:
Evidence of Deliberate Decision to Withhold Reference Required for Inequitable Conduct
Licensee Bears Burden of Proving Non-Infringemet in Some Circumstances
No Inequitable Conduct for Failure to Disclose Litigation Involving Parent of Application
Mere Possibility of Allegedly Infringing Activity Insufficient for Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction
Doctrine of Equivalents Is Available for “Substantially All” Limitation
Court Finds Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of Claim Unreasonable
Patent bar practice questions april 2003Bradley Sands
The document contains a 15 question multiple choice exam from the USPTO regarding patent law procedures and rules. The questions cover topics such as proper Markush groups, responses to office actions, fees and deadlines, common ownership under 103, and when a final rejection is proper. The exam tests knowledge of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP).
This document is the outline I generated from the online tests available from the USPTO Patent Bar. I didn't pay for an expensive test prep to study for the patent bar. Instead, I went through the freely available test questions from 2002 and 2003, found all of the answers in the MPEP, and put the Q&As into manageable slides. Thus, the day before the exam, I was able to easily go through 200+ questions in only a few hours and go through this entire Outline in about an hour. Then, the day of the exam, I went through this outline in the morning. I took and "preliminarily" passed the patent bar on August 11, 2016. Hopefully this content will help you study for and confidently take the patent bar.
Coalition Forum: Legal Implications of Offshore DrillingAdele Ramos
The document discusses several legal issues with Belize's current laws and regulations regarding offshore drilling. It notes that Belize's legal system does not offer sufficient protection for private individuals in the event of environmental damages from drilling. The Petroleum Act gives too much power to the Minister and lacks requirements for consultation, environmental protection plans, and adherence to international standards. Contracts awarded by the Minister also lack necessary safeguards. Overall, Belize's laws and oversight of offshore drilling contracts are insufficient to protect citizens and the environment from potential harms.
Just Intellectuals Newsletter (March 2017 ed)Kristy Downing
The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Life Technologies v. Promega regarding the interpretation of "substantial portion" under 35 USC §271(f)(1). The Court held that (1) "substantial portion" refers to a quantitative, not qualitative, measure and (2) exporting a single component is insufficient to create liability without being tailored for infringement under §271(f)(2). However, the Court did not specify how many components would need to be exported to be considered a "substantial portion."
The Federal Circuit Review is a monthly newsletter featuring the latest case summaries handed down from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In this Issue:
• Judgment of Infringement Entered as Sanction
• Patent Exhaustion Does Not Apply to Harvested Seeds
• Judges Disagree on § 101 Standards
• Litigation Is Not a Domestic Industry
Anatomy of a Civil Appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme CourtNicole Benjamin
This document outlines the anatomy and process of a civil appeal to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. It details the key steps including filing a notice of appeal within 20 days of judgment, requesting transcripts within 20 days, transmitting the record within 60 days, submitting Rule 12A statements, participating in a pre-briefing conference, submitting briefs or supplemental statements depending on the calendar assignment, participating in oral arguments ranging from 10-30 minutes depending on the calendar, and awaiting a decision which is typically released by July 1 each year. The process involves pre-docketing and post-docketing requirements and procedures.
This document is an objection filed by the United States Trustee to motions filed by Petitioning Creditors and Alleged Debtors to seal certain documents filed with the court. The U.S. Trustee does not oppose sealing documents pending a ruling on whether the bankruptcy cases will proceed, but argues that any sealing should end if the court finds cause to open bankruptcy cases, as the information would then become public. The U.S. Trustee asserts that bankruptcy law favors public disclosure of information relevant to creditors and parties in interest.
Anhing v. Viet Phu - Order denying defendant's motion for attorney's feesRobert Scott Lawrence
Order denying defendant Viet Phu's post-trial motion for attorneys fees, noting that under the Lanham Act a prevailing defendant is only entitled to fees in exceptional cases.
PruvIt Ventures VS ForeverGreen International Lawsuit filedPruvit
http://meta.pruvitnow.com Pruvit Ventures has filed a lawsuit against ForeverGreen International. Pruvit is shipping product today. For detailed info check Troy Dooly's post and video: http://mlmhelpdesk.com/breaking-mlm-news-pruvit-ventures-files-federal-lawsuit-against-forevergreen-aka-fg-express/
Assignment 1HOW_TO_BRIEF_A_CASE paper format.docxHOW TO BRIEF.docxsherni1
Assignment 1/HOW_TO_BRIEF_A_CASE paper format.docx
HOW TO BRIEF A CASE
Below I have sketched in the beginnings of a brief as a format. This time-honored method of analysis is the basic unit of law school instruction and so most judicial opinions are written to conform to this approach. Knowing the rules makes watching the game so much more interesting. Start with the name of the Case which is called the “style” of the case.
PERLA GRAFF v. JAY L. GRAFF, 569 So. 2d 811, Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. (1990). First is the case name, followed by the citation which tells where you can find the hard copy of this case. This particular case is found in Volume 569 of the Southern Reporter, Second Series at page 811 in an opinion written by the First District Court of Appeals for Florida in 1990.
FACTS: (In this section you want to state the circumstances and events that led to the plaintiff suing the defendant as well as any facts relevant to the issue(s).) The parties were married for over 13 years, but, prior to the marriage the Husband purchased a home solely in his name. Thirteen years into the marriage, and for survivorship purposes only, the Husband deeded the property to both he and his wife as tenants by the entireties. Additionally, the parties used their joint checking account to make the mortgage payments and the parties used marital monies to add a pool and replace the roof. The Husband testified that he purchased the home for $48,000.00 prior to the marriage and that at the time of the divorce the home’s value was between $100,000.00 and $110,000.00.
ISSUE: (In this section you want to state the specific legal question(s) raised in the case. Look at the overall question(s) to be resolved by the court. Sometimes you will have more than one question, but, you want to state your issue as a question or begin your issue with the word ‘whether’) Whether the increased value of the marital home was a marital asset and therefore whether the Wife was entitled to equitable distribution of that value.
HOLDING: (In this section identify how the court answered the issue. You want to answer the issue(s) in the affirmative or negative, mirroring the issue as you answer it.) The increased value of the home was a marital asset and the Wife was entitled to equitable distribution of that value.
LAW: (In this section you state the law used by the court to reach its decision. Sometimes it will be common law, meaning a court decision or it will be based on statute.) Section 61.075, Florida Statutes, Equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities.
RATIONALE: (What legal reasoning formed the court’s decision? What rules of law, for example, did it apply? How did it interpret legal principles or documents? How did it construe the facts? In other words, why did the court reached its decision?) Here you outline the court’s theory of why the increased value of the Husband’s pre-marital home was a marital asset and therefore why the Wife was entitled ...
2 of 2 DOCUMENTSJ. TAIKWOK YUNG WEBADVISO, Plaintiff-Appel.docxeugeniadean34240
2 of 2 DOCUMENTS
J. TAIKWOK YUNG WEBADVISO, Plaintiff-Appellant, -v.- BANK OF AMERICA
CORP., MERRILL LYNCH, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 10-292-cv (L), 10-1307-cv (Con)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
448 Fed. Appx. 95; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21648
October 26, 2011, Decided
NOTICE: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE
CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Motion denied by Yung v. Bank of Am. Corp., 132 S. Ct. 1878, 182 L. Ed. 2d 641, 2012
U.S. LEXIS 2657 (U.S., 2012)
Related proceeding at Web-Adviso v. Trump, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28174 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2013)
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1]
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Denny Chin,
Judge).
Webadviso v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13206 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2010)
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff internet businessman appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York an order granting summary judgment to defendant bank and investment company on plaintiff's
petition for a declaratory judgment and on defendants' counter-claim for violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer
Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(d).
OVERVIEW: The district court granted summary judgment sua sponte. After entering an order to show cause, the
district court granted plaintiff a full and fair opportunity to be heard. By plaintiff's own admission, he sought to acquire
high value domain names and park them with domain parking service providers to generate pay-per-click revenue. By
doing so, plaintiff ran afoul of the ACPA, for whether or not he had any intention of selling the domain names to
appellees, he clearly had the intention to profit from the goodwill associated with the trademarks that comprised the
domain names. Plaintiff's own self-description made clear that he registered the domain names in bad faith and thereby
violated the ACPA. Thus, no genuine issue of material fact prevented the district court from granting summary
judgment to defendants on their ACPA counter-claim.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
CORE TERMS: domain, registrant's, trademark, summary judgment, bad faith, site, registration, sua sponte,
distinctive, registered, consumers, material fact, fair use, bona fide, accessible, goodwill, tarnish, genuine issue, fair
opportunity, prior conduct, safe harbor, cybersquatting, counter-claim, pay-per-click, confusingly, sponsorship,
affiliation, endorsement, disparage, offering
Page 1
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Appellate Review > Standards of Review
[HN1] An appellate court reviews a district court's decision to grant summary judgment sua sponte to the movants de
novo.
Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Standards > Appropriateness
Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Standards > Genuine Disputes
Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Sta.
06/27/11: Response to DOJ Motion Opposing Amicus Briefartba
This document is a reply brief submitted by a group of amici curiae (friends of the court) in support of their motion for leave to file an amicus brief in a case before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The amici argue that EPA's opposition to their motion is based on an overly narrow interpretation of the standard for allowing amicus briefs. Specifically, the amici assert that they can provide unique perspectives and expertise to assist the court, including analysis from a renowned economist of the potential nationwide economic impacts of EPA's actions at issue in the case. The amici therefore request that the court accept their amicus brief.
This document summarizes a court ruling on a motion to dismiss claims against three investors in Veoh Networks Inc. for secondary copyright infringement. The court held that while the complaint alleged the investors obtained control of Veoh through board seats and financing, it did not sufficiently plead that the investors were significantly involved in Veoh's alleged infringing activities to state valid claims of contributory copyright infringement against the investors. As a result, the court granted the investors' motion to dismiss the secondary liability claims against them.
This document is a memorandum opinion from a US District Court case between I/P Engine, Inc. and various defendants including AOL, Google, and others. The court is determining an ongoing royalty rate for the defendants' continued infringement of I/P Engine's patents related to online advertising systems. The court considers the 3.5% running royalty rate from the previous jury verdict as a starting point. After analyzing additional factors related to the defendants now being adjudged infringers, the court sets the ongoing royalty rate at 6.5%, consisting of a 4.6% base rate plus a 1.9% enhancement for willful infringement.
This document is a petition for review filed with the Supreme Court of California seeking review of two appellate court decisions related to a legal malpractice case. The petitioners (the plaintiff and additional judgment debtors from the underlying case) are asking the Supreme Court to grant review of the present matter and hold it pending the outcome of a related case also pending before the Supreme Court. If the petitioners prevail in the related case, they would be entitled to reversal of the orders in the present matter. Granting review and holding the present matter would prevent those orders from becoming final while the related case is still pending.
AssignmentsCase file for report.docxPage 1 of 2 DOCUM.docxssuser562afc1
Assignments/Case file for report.docx
Page
1 of 2 DOCUMENTS
XIMPLEWARE CORP., Plaintiff, v.VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC.; TRILOGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.; AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC.; and AUREA SOFTWARE, INC., Defendants.
No. C 13-05160 SI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172411
December 6, 2013, Decided
December 6, 2013, Filed
CORE TERMS: discovery, expedited, preliminary injunction, restraining order, temporary, software, license, deposition, declaration, discovery requests, patent infringement, irreparable injury, inclusion, copyright infringement, good cause, irreparable harm, infringement, injunction, injunctive, subpoena, issuance, patent, Lanham Act, ex parte application, declaratory relief, narrowly tailored, overbroad, patch
COUNSEL: [*1] For XimpleWare Corp, Plaintiff: Ansel Jay Halliburton, Christopher Joseph Sargent, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Jack Russo, Computerlaw Group LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
For Versata Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation formerly known as Trilogy Software, Inc., Trilogy Development Group, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants: David C. Bohrer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Valorem Law Group, San Jose, CA; Alisa Anne Lipski, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C., Houston, TX; Amir Alavi, PRO HAC VICE, AZA, Houston, TX; Benjamin Francis Foster, PRO HAC VICE, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi Mensing, P.C., Houston, TX.
For Ameriprise Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Aurea Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation also known as Aurea, Inc., Defendants: David C. Bohrer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Valorem Law Group, San Jose, CA; Case Collard, Denver, CO; Gregory Scot Tamkin, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Denver, CO.
JUDGES: SUSAN ILLSTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION BY: SUSAN ILLSTON
OPINION
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUES FOR EXPEDITED PRELIMINARY DISCOVERY
On December 4, 2013, the Court held a hearing [*2] on plaintiff's ex parte application for a temporary restraining order, request that the Court order defendants to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and request for expedited discovery. Counsel for plaintiff and defendants argued at the hearing. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff's applications for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause, and DENIES plaintiff's request for expedited preliminary discovery.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff XimpleWare Corporation is a California corporation which develops, designs, and licenses software for data processing. Compl. ¶¶ 2-3. One of XimpleWare's software products is known as "VTD-XML", an XML or Extensible Markup Language program. Defendant Versata provides software to insurance companies; one of its products is Distribution Channel Management (DCM). Defendant Trilogy Development Group acquired Versata in 2006 and defendant ...
Please readXimpleware Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc. Et A.docxsarantatersall
Please read
Ximpleware Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc. Et Al
, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 172411. I've included the case below.
Be sure to read the case and then brief it using the case brief format found in the tutorials folder under How to Brief a Legal Case. Your assignment submission must use the case brief format which is simply a way to organize your thoughts and it should be 1 page in length with the rationale section being the longest part of the case brief. There is also a tutorial on how to read a legal case.
1 of 2 DOCUMENTS
XIMPLEWARE CORP., Plaintiff, v.VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC.; TRILOGY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.; AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC.; and AUREA SOFTWARE, INC., Defendants.
No. C 13-05160 SI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172411
December 6, 2013, Decided
December 6, 2013, Filed
CORE TERMS:
discovery, expedited, preliminary injunction, restraining order, temporary, software, license, deposition, declaration, discovery requests, patent infringement, irreparable injury, inclusion, copyright infringement, good cause, irreparable harm, infringement, injunction, injunctive, subpoena, issuance, patent, Lanham Act, ex parte application, declaratory relief, narrowly tailored, overbroad, patch
COUNSEL:
[*1]
For XimpleWare Corp, Plaintiff: Ansel Jay Halliburton, Christopher Joseph Sargent, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Jack Russo, Computerlaw Group LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
For Versata Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation formerly known as Trilogy Software, Inc., Trilogy Development Group, Inc., a California corporation, Defendants: David C. Bohrer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Valorem Law Group, San Jose, CA; Alisa Anne Lipski, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing P.C., Houston, TX; Amir Alavi, PRO HAC VICE, AZA, Houston, TX; Benjamin Francis Foster, PRO HAC VICE, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi Mensing, P.C., Houston, TX.
For Ameriprise Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Aurea Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation also known as Aurea, Inc., Defendants: David C. Bohrer, LEAD ATTORNEY, Valorem Law Group, San Jose, CA; Case Collard, Denver, CO; Gregory Scot Tamkin, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Denver, CO.
JUDGES:
SUSAN ILLSTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
OPINION BY:
SUSAN ILLSTON
OPINION
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUES FOR EXPEDITED PRELIMINARY DISCOVERY
On December 4, 2013, the Court held a hearing
[*2]
on plaintiff's
ex parte
application for a temporary restraining order, request that the Court order defendants to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue, and request for expedited discovery. Counsel for plaintiff and defendants argued at the hearing. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES plaintiff's applications for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause, and DENIES plaintiff's reque.
Confessions of Judgement in Kyko Global Inc vs Madhavi Vuppalapati & Prithvi ...mh37o
The judgement was passed in favour of Plaintiffs Kyko Global Inc. Confessions of Judgement in Kyko Global Inc vs Madhavi Vuppalapati & Prithvi Info Solutions Ltd
This order grants the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. The court found that the plaintiff did not adequately define the elements of its claimed trade dresses for essential oils and hair care products. Specifically, the plaintiff's use of the word "including" when listing elements suggested the dresses were not limited to what was listed. As the exact scope of the claimed dresses was uncertain, the plaintiff failed to give the defendants fair notice of the nature and basis of the trade dress claims against them. The court dismissed the plaintiff's three causes of action for trademark infringement, common law trademark infringement, and unfair business practices.
Plaintiffs Cong Wang and Seaseng Inc. filed a complaint against Defendants Kandi Technologies Corp. and related entities alleging fraudulent business practices. Plaintiffs agreed to be a distributor for Defendants' products. However, Defendants failed to fulfill promises, stole Plaintiffs' corporate documents and trade secrets, and falsely claimed ownership of Plaintiffs' business. Defendants have employed threats and frivolous lawsuits to force Plaintiffs to relinquish control. Plaintiffs bring claims under RICO and state law for breach of contract, fraud, and other torts.
Motion To Dismiss Raanan Katz Copyright Lawsuitrkcenters
Miami Heat minority owner Raanan Katz does not appreciate the photo of himself circulating on the internet, so he is suing Google and a Miami blogger for refusing to take it down.
And Raanan Katz, RK Centers Owner, apparently has enough money to sue anybody else who posts the photo.
This document is Penguin Group (USA) Inc.'s preliminary pretrial statement in a lawsuit filed against it and other defendants related to inaccuracies in two books published by Penguin. The statement addresses the required topics including a brief factual outline of the case, issues concerning jurisdiction and venue, the factual basis of claims and defenses, the legal theories underlying claims and defenses, computation of damages, related litigation, proposed stipulations, proposed deadlines, and controlling issues of law.
This class action lawsuit alleges that Cheyenne Medical LLC, doing business as Thrive Cannabis Marketplace, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited marketing text messages to the plaintiff's cellular phone using an automatic telephone dialing system, without her prior express written consent. The complaint alleges the plaintiff received multiple marketing texts from Thrive promoting discounts and deals. If the class is certified, the plaintiff seeks statutory damages for herself and all others similarly situated for Thrive's negligent and willful TCPA violations.
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) 14th Session, January 25-29, 2010 (Geneva, Switzerland)
This document discusses spoliation of evidence claims and the preservation and destruction of evidence. It covers:
1) What constitutes evidence, including documents, testimony, tangible objects, video footage, computer data, logs, witness statements, samples, recordings, and more.
2) How the destruction of evidence can lead to an "adverse presumption" against the destroying party, meaning a jury may presume the evidence would have been unfavorable to them.
3) Available remedies for spoliation include discovery sanctions like fines, dismissal, or default judgment, as well as allowing an adverse presumption instruction to the jury.
4) Defenses to spoliation claims include if litigation was not foreseen,
Similar to Lang van v. Vng Corp - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss (20)
Class action complaint alleging civil RICO violations against Harvey Weinstein and Miramax for sexually harassing hundreds of women and engaging in a long-term cover up
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive functioning. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
Nestlé used a former model's likeness on their coffee labels without proper permission. The model, Russell Christoff, was originally paid $250 for a photo shoot in 1986 and signed a contract stating he would be paid $2,000 if his likeness was used in Canadian marketing. However, Nestlé went on to use his image in various countries for years without paying him. When Christoff discovered this, he sued Nestlé. A jury awarded him $15.6 million, though the case continued appeals. It centered on whether Nestlé's multiple uses of Christoff's image across different publications and markets constituted a "single publication" or "multiple publications" in terms of copyright.
The document discusses how superhero symbols and logos from comics have become deeply ingrained in popular culture and society. It notes that many recent movies have been based on superhero franchises and that these characters represent ideals of strength and hope. The symbols of superheroes like Superman and Batman are now among the most powerful trademarks in the world, as recognizable as major corporate logos, showing how these fictional icons from comics have taken on real meaning in the real world.
The European Court of Justice ruled that once software is purchased, the buyer owns it like a book and can resell, lend, or transfer it electronically. This means that in the EU, buyers can now resell various software products, electronic downloads, and ebooks that they previously purchased. However, US law currently takes the opposing view that software is licensed rather than owned, so reselling is not allowed. This ruling creates inconsistency between EU and US copyright laws and may lead to legal challenges as US companies try to enforce their policies in the EU market.
The document discusses the concept of genericide, which is when a brand name becomes so commonly used that it loses its legal protection as a trademark. It provides examples of former trademarks like aspirin, cellophane, and thermos that are now used as common nouns. The document then lists other current brand names and asks the reader to determine if they have become generic or still have trademark protection. It concludes by providing a hypothetical scenario using many of these terms without trademark symbols to determine if they have achieved genericide status.
This document discusses international trademark battles between France and other countries over the names of certain foods and wines. Specifically, it summarizes France's successful lawsuits preventing other countries from using the names "champagne" and "Roquefort" for their sparkling wines and blue cheeses unless they met certain standards. While trademark protection is understandable, the document argues it can go too far, pointing out that common names like "champagne" had taken on their own meaning beyond just a geographic designation by the 1920s. It also notes the U.S. retaliation against French Roquefort cheese in the 1980s as evidence these naming disputes can engender long-lasting animosity between countries.
The document discusses the upcoming release of the film adaptation of The Hobbit. It notes that while The Hobbit predates The Lord of the Rings chronologically, it can also be considered a standalone novel. There is excitement around The Hobbit film as a potential blockbuster success like The Lord of Rings films. However, the producer who holds the rights to The Hobbit, Saul Zaentz, has been aggressively pursuing legal action, including threatening a British pub called The Hobbit. This sparked public backlash and two actors ultimately paid the licensing fee to allow the pub to continue operating without issues.
1) The article discusses plagiarism and whether borrowing from existing works can be considered fair use in creating new works.
2) It notes that Shakespeare was known to liberally borrow plotlines and dialogue from other works in his time, and questions whether strict rules against plagiarism make sense given that artists are naturally influenced by what they read.
3) The author argues that consciously rearranging snippets of text and dialogue from other works to create something new should be considered fair use and not copyright infringement.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government Liaison
Lang van v. Vng Corp - Order granting Vng's motion to dismiss
1. CCaassee 8 8:1:144-c-cvv-0-000110000-A-AGG-R-RNNBB D Dooccuummeennt t5 576-1 F Fileiledd 1 100/0/089/1/144 P Paaggee 1 1 o of f1 111 P Paaggee I DID # #:1:1557934
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SACV 14-0100 AG (RNBx) Date October 8, 2014
Title LANG VAN, INC. v. VNG CORPORATION, et al.
Present: The
Honorable
ANDREW J. GUILFORD
Lisa Bredahl Not Present
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Lang Van, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) brings this copyright infringement action against
Defendants VNG Corporation (“VNG”) and International Data Group, Inc. (“IDG”). There
are now four motions to dismiss before the Court: (1) Defendants’ joint Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 14), (2) VNG’s first Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Proper Service and Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 37), (3) VNG’s second Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (“VNG’s Motion”, Dkt. No. 42), and (4) IDG’s Amended
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (“IDG’s
Motion,” Dkt. No. 44).
Motions (1) and (2) are largely redundant with Motions (3) and (4). Thus the Court focuses
on the latter motions, which are GRANTED.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
VNG raised several objections to evidence presented by Plaintiff in opposition to VNG’s
Motion. None of this evidence would have a material effect on the Court’s ruling, but
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 11
2. CCaassee 8 8:1:144-c-cvv-0-000110000-A-AGG-R-RNNBB D Dooccuummeennt t5 576-1 F Fileiledd 1 100/0/089/1/144 P Paaggee 2 2 o of f1 111 P Paaggee I DID # #:1:1557945
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SACV 14-0100 AG (RNBx) Date October 8, 2014
Title LANG VAN, INC. v. VNG CORPORATION, et al.
nevertheless, only admissible evidence is considered in deciding the Motion.
BACKGROUND
Headquartered in Westminster, California, Lang Van is a leading producer and distributor
of Vietnamese music and entertainment. (FAC ¶¶ 12-13.) It has the “largest library of content
of any Vietnamese production company, owning the copyrights to more that 12,000 songs
and 600 original programs.” (Id. ¶ 17.) Lang Van also has contracts with “various Vietnam-based
production companies to distribute their titles internationally.” (Id. ¶ 16.)
VNG is a Vietnam corporation with its principal place of business in Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam. (Id. ¶ 6.) While it began in 2004 as a gaming company, VNG launched the Zing
Music Website (Zing.vn) in 2007 to make “massive amounts of music available for download
to site visitors.” (Id. ¶¶ 18-20.) This content includes thousands of Lang Van’s copyrighted
works, offered to site visitors for free. (Id. ¶¶ 91-92, 97.) The website has approximately 20
million users and is one of the most popular sites in Vietnam. (Id. ¶¶ 25, 27.) Lang Van has
received no compensation from VNG for the use of its copyrighted works. (Id. ¶ 93.)
IDG is a Massachusetts corporation and a limited partner in IDG Ventures. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 41.)
When VNG began as a small underfunded start-up, IDG Ventures invested $500,000 in the
company on behalf of its limited partners. (Id. ¶¶ 35, 41, 46.) IDG’s wholly-owned
subsidiary, IDG Ventures Vietnam, “install[ed]” employee Bryan Pelz “to run VNG” and
Managing General Partner Nguyen Bao Hoang to sit on VNG’s board of directors. (Id. ¶¶ 47-
56.) The IDG entities helped establish “VNG’s playbook for success, which included growth
by rampant copyright infringement,” and they “directed and supervised the willful copyright
infringement.” (Id. ¶¶ 57-58.) Today, IDG Ventures Vietnam lists VNG as one of its
portfolio companies. (Id. ¶ 59.)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 11
3. CCaassee 8 8:1:144-c-cvv-0-000110000-A-AGG-R-RNNBB D Dooccuummeennt t5 576-1 F Fileiledd 1 100/0/089/1/144 P Paaggee 3 3 o of f1 111 P Paaggee I DID # #:1:1557956
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SACV 14-0100 AG (RNBx) Date October 8, 2014
Title LANG VAN, INC. v. VNG CORPORATION, et al.
PERSONAL JURISDICTION
VNG and IDG both ask the Court to dismiss the case against them for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Plaintiff argues that the Court has specific jurisdiction over VNG and general
jurisdiction over IDG. The Court finds that jurisdiction over both defendants is lacking.
1. Legal Standard
Adistrict court has personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if two things are true:
(1) jurisdiction exists under the forum state’s long-arm statute, and (2) the assertion of
personal jurisdiction is consistent with the limitations of the due process clause. Pac. Atl.
Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d 1325, 1327 (9th Cir.1985). “Because
California’s long-arm jurisdictional statute is coextensive with federal due process
requirements, the jurisdictional analyses under state law and federal due process are the
same.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800-01 (9th Cir. 2004).
“For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant consistent with
due process, that defendant must have ‘certain minimum contacts' with the relevant forum
‘such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.’ ” CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th
Cir.2011) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1954)). Jurisdiction can
exist in a given forum under a theory of general or specific jurisdiction. Helicopteros
Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-16 (1984).
2. Specific Jurisdiction Over VNG
Plaintiff argues that the Court has specific jurisdiction over VNG because its claims relate
to VNG’s contacts with California. The Court disagrees. Specific jurisdiction exists where
the following three-prong test is satisfied:
(1) The non-resident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 11
4. CCaassee 8 8:1:144-c-cvv-0-000110000-A-AGG-R-RNNBB D Dooccuummeennt t5 576-1 F Fileiledd 1 100/0/089/1/144 P Paaggee 4 4 o of f1 111 P Paaggee I DID # #:1:1557967
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SACV 14-0100 AG (RNBx) Date October 8, 2014
Title LANG VAN, INC. v. VNG CORPORATION, et al.
consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform
some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of
conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and
protections of its laws;
(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant's
forum-related activities; and
(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial
justice, i.e. it must be reasonable.
Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004). “If the
plaintiff succeeds in satisfying both of the first two prongs, the burden then shifts to the
defendant to present a compelling case that the exercise of jurisdiction would not be
reasonable.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
2.1 Purposeful Direction
Plaintiff argues that the first prong of the specific jurisdiction test, requiring the defendant’s
purposeful direction of activities to the forum state, is satisfied under the “effects test”
established by the Supreme Court in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), and applied by
the Ninth Circuit in various cases. VNG argues that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115 (2014) clarifies the rule and counsels the Court against
exercising jurisdiction based on the “effects test.” The Court agrees with VNG.
2.1.1 The Effects Test
The effects test arises from Calder v. Jones, where the Supreme Court held that a California
court properly asserted jurisdiction in a libel case concerning an article written in Florida.
465 U.S. at 791. The defendants were employees of the National Enquirer, a newspaper
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 4 of 11
5. CCaassee 8 8:1:144-c-cvv-0-000110000-A-AGG-R-RNNBB D Dooccuummeennt t5 576-1 F Fileiledd 1 100/0/089/1/144 P Paaggee 5 5 o of f1 111 P Paaggee I DID # #:1:1557978
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SACV 14-0100 AG (RNBx) Date October 8, 2014
Title LANG VAN, INC. v. VNG CORPORATION, et al.
publisher incorporated in Florida that enjoyed its highest circulation in California. Id. at 785.
Aside from their article that circulated in California, the defendants had few contacts with
the state. The plaintiff, on the other hand, lived and worked in California, and suffered harm
when the article was distributed there. Id. at 786, 789-90. In deciding that jurisdiction was
proper, the Supreme Court reasoned that the defendants “knew that the brunt of [plaintiff’s]
injury would be felt . . . in the state in which she lives and works and in which the National
Enquirer has its largest circulation.” Id. at 789-90.
Relying on Calder, the Ninth Circuit has applied a three-part effects test to similar cases,
requiring that “(1) [the defendant] committed an intentional act, (2) expressly aimed at the
forum state, (3) causing harm that the defendant knows is likely to be suffered in the forum
state.” Washington Shoe, 704 F.3d at 673 (internal quotations omitted). This test has been
applied to numerous copyright cases, with varying results. Compare Washington Shoe Co.
v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc., 704 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2012) (upholding jurisdiction); Mavrix
Photo, Inc. v. Brand Technologies, Inc., 647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) (same); Brayton
Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2010) (same); Columbia
Pictures Television v. Krypton Broad. of Birmingham, Inc., 106 F.3d 284 (9th Cir. 1997)
(same), rev’d on other grounds sub nom., Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523
U.S. 340 (1998); with Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2006) (no
jurisdiction); Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir. 2004)
(same).
Plaintiff relies heavily on Washington Shoe—an infringement action by a Washington shoe
manufacturer against an Arkansas retailer—where a Ninth Circuit panel held that the three-prong
effects test was satisfied where an out-of-state defendant willfully infringed on the
copyright of an in-state corporation. In that case, the first and third prongs were easily met
because it was a willful infringement action where the defendant knew the plaintiff would
suffer harm in Washington, the forum state. After extended discussion, the panel held that
the “express aiming” prong was satisfied as well, basing its decision primarily on defendant’s
knowledge that its infringement would harm the plaintiff in Washington. Id at 678 (“Because
the harm caused by an infringement of the copyright laws must be felt at least where the
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 5 of 11
6. CCaassee 8 8:1:144-c-cvv-0-000110000-A-AGG-R-RNNBB D Dooccuummeennt t5 576-1 F Fileiledd 1 100/0/089/1/144 P Paaggee 6 6 o of f1 111 P Paaggee I DID # #:1:1557989
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SACV 14-0100 AG (RNBx) Date October 8, 2014
Title LANG VAN, INC. v. VNG CORPORATION, et al.
copyright is held, we think the impact of a willful infringement is necessarily directed there
as well.”) Plaintiff argues that Washington Shoe controls this case because VNG willfully
infringed on copyrights it knew were held by a California corporation. (Opp. to VNG’s
Motion, Dkt. No. 45, 14:3-19.) Because the Supreme Court recently clarified the effects test,
the Court disagrees.
2.1.2 Walden v. Fiore
In Walden v. Fiore, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s holding that personal
jurisdiction could be exercised in Nevada over a DEA agent who allegedly harmed the
plaintiffs—Nevada residents—by intentionally filing a false affidavit against them in
Georgia. Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1124 (2014). The agent had no connections of his
own to Nevada, but the Ninth Circuit panel thought it sufficient that he knew of the
plaintiffs’ connection to that forum. Id. In reversing, the Supreme Court emphasized that
“[t]he proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect, but
whether the defendant’s conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way.” Id. at
1125. Furthermore, it stated, “it is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must
create contacts with the forum State.” Id. at 1126. The Supreme Court found insufficient
contacts between the defendant and Nevada, and so reversed the Ninth Circuit.
The Supreme Court distinguished Walden from Calder—the libel case concerning the
National Enquirer article—by noting that the defendants in Calder actually had meaningful
contacts with the forum state concerning the events that gave rise to the claims. In Calder,
“the reputational injury caused by the defendants’ story would not have occurred but for the
fact that the defendants wrote an article for publication in California that was read by a large
number of California citizens.” Id. at 1124. Moreover, “because publication to third persons
is a necessary element of libel, . . . the defendants’ intentional tort actually occurred in
California.” Id. Thus, the grounds for jurisdiction in Calder were not defendants’ knowledge
that they were harming a plaintiff who happened to live in California, but rather their
intentional act of writing a libelous article for broad publication in California. In other words,
jurisdiction was based on their own contacts with California.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 6 of 11
7. CCaassee 8 8:1:144-c-cvv-0-000110000-A-AGG-R-RNNBB D Dooccuummeennt t5 576-1 F Fileiledd 1 100/0/089/1/144 P Paaggee 7 7 o of f1 111 P Paaggee I DID # #:1:1567090
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SACV 14-0100 AG (RNBx) Date October 8, 2014
Title LANG VAN, INC. v. VNG CORPORATION, et al.
2.1.3 Application to VNG
While Plaintiff acknowledges in its Opposition that jurisdiction under the effects test
“requires something more” than a link between the harmed plaintiff and the forum, it offers
only tenuous connections between VNG and California. Plaintiff points to (1) VNG’s
knowledge that it was infringing the copyrights of a California company; (2) VNG’s
“interactive” website, which is accessible in California; and (3) various communications
between VNG and Lang Van discussing the infringement issues. (Opposition to VNG’s
Motion, Dkt. No. 45, 19:5-13.) But these facts do not show that VNG expressly aimed its
conduct at California.
Concerning point (1), this is precisely the sort of argument rejected by the Supreme Court
in Walden. The Supreme Court made clear in Walden that jurisdiction is not conferred by
defendant’s mere knowledge that the party harmed by its acts resides in a certain forum. In
Walden, the defendant intentionally filed a false affidavit against the forum’s resident. Here,
VNG allegedly infringed upon the copyright of the forum’s resident. In both cases, the
defendant knew of the plaintiff’s connections to the forum. There is little relevant difference
between the cases, and thus, without more, the Court is bound to follow Walden.
VNG’s interactive website is also insufficient to establish that VNG expressly aimed its
conduct at California. VNG’s website has a Vietnam address on Vietnam servers and is in
the Vietnamese language. It cannot serve as a jurisdictional hook in California simply
because it is interactive and accessible from the state. DFSB Kollective Co. v. Bourne, 897
F. Supp. 2d 871, 881 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“If the defendant merely operates a website, even a
highly interactive website, that is accessible from, but does not target, the forum state, then
the defendant may not be haled into court in that state without offending the Constitution.”)
(quoting be2LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555, 559 (7th Cir. 2011)). Plaintiff must show, in
addition to the website’s existence, that it targets the forum state. Plaintiff fails to do that.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 7 of 11
8. CCaassee 8 8:1:144-c-cvv-0-000110000-A-AGG-R-RNNBB D Dooccuummeennt t5 576-1 F Fileiledd 1 100/0/089/1/144 P Paaggee 8 8 o of f1 111 P Paaggee I DID # #:1:1568001
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SACV 14-0100 AG (RNBx) Date October 8, 2014
Title LANG VAN, INC. v. VNG CORPORATION, et al.
Finally, the alleged communications between VNG and Lang Van are insufficient to establish
jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff points to various meetings and emails between the
parties, ostensibly aimed at resolving this copyright dispute. But Plaintiff cites no authority
showing that such contacts give rise to jurisdiction. Instead, Plaintiff cites cases stating only
the uncontroversial proposition that emails give rise to jurisdiction where they directly lead
to the harm caused. See Global Acquisitions Network v. Bank of Am. Corp., CV 12-8758
DDP, 2013 WL 3450402 (C.D.Cal. July 9, 2013) (emails used to perpetrate fraud); SeQual
Techs., Inc. v. Stern, 10-cv-2655 DMS, 2011 WL 1303653, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2011)
(emails used to market product at center of dispute); Roberts v. Synergistic Int’l, LLC, 676
F.Supp.2d 934 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (emails and phone calls used to initiate fraud). Plaintiff
points to no cases where discussions intended to resolve a dispute later give rise to specific
jurisdiction in a case concerning that dispute. Thus the Court finds that the contacts in this
case are insufficient. Cf. Digit-Tel Holdings, Inc. v. Proteq Telecomms. (PTE), Ltd., 89 F.3d
519, 524 (8th Cir. 1996) (“Courts have hesitated to use unsuccessful settlement discussions
as ‘contacts’ for jurisdictional purposes.”).
Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to meet the first prong of the Ninth Circuit’s specific
jurisdiction test, the “purposeful direction” prong. Because all three prongs must be satisfied
in order to establish jurisdiction, this failure alone warrants dismissal. Nevertheless, the Court
will briefly address the second and third prongs.
2.2 Relatedness
To satisfy the second prong of the specific jurisdiction test, Plaintiff must show that the claim
arises out of, or relates to, the defendant’s forum-related activities. Schwarzenegger v. Fred
Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 802 (9th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff has failed to show that its
claims arise from Defendant’s very limited contacts with California. To the contrary, it
appears that the claims arise primarily from Defendant’s activities targeting Vietnam.
2.3 Fair Play and Substantial Justice
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 8 of 11
9. CCaassee 8 8:1:144-c-cvv-0-000110000-A-AGG-R-RNNBB D Dooccuummeennt t5 576-1 F Fileiledd 1 100/0/089/1/144 P Paaggee 9 9 o of f1 111 P Paaggee I DID # #:1:1568012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SACV 14-0100 AG (RNBx) Date October 8, 2014
Title LANG VAN, INC. v. VNG CORPORATION, et al.
Finally, under the third prong of the specific jurisdiction test, the Court considers whether
exercising jurisdiction would “comport with fair play and substantial justice.” Id. The Court
understands the difficulty of Plaintiff’s position. Plaintiff has a strong interest in protecting
its copyrights and legitimate concerns that effective relief cannot be found in Vietnam. But
the Court cannot say that it is reasonable to exercise jurisdiction over a foreign entity for acts
that occur in, and target, a separate sovereign nation.
2.4 Conclusion
In sum, Plaintiff has failed to show that VNG has enough contacts with California for the
Court to exercise jurisdiction on these claims. Most importantly, VNG never purposely
directed its activities toward California. Therefore, VNG’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
3. General Jurisdiction Over IDG
General jurisdiction arises when a defendants’ “affiliations with the State . . . are so constant
and pervasive ‘as to render [it] essentially at home in the state.’” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134
S.Ct. 746, 751 (2014) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations. S.A. v. Brown, 131 S.Ct.
2846, 2851 (2011)). Only in an “exceptional case” will a court have general jurisdiction over
a corporation in a state other than the corporation’s state of incorporation or principal place
of business. Id. at 761 n.19. “This is an exacting standard, as it should be, because a finding
of general jurisdiction permits a defendant to be haled into court in the forum state to answer
for any of its activities anywhere in the world.” Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co.,
374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff argues that the Court has general jurisdiction over IDG, but Plaintiff’s arguments
fall far short of the demanding standard. After acknowledging that IDG’s state of
incorporation and principal place of business is Massachusetts, Plaintiff points only to scarce
contacts between IDG and California. For example, Plaintiff asserts that some officers and
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 9 of 11
10. CaCsea s8e:1 84:-1c4v--c0v0-100001-0A0G-A-RGN-RBN BD o Dcuomcuemnte 5n6t 5 7F-i1le d F 1il0e/d0 81/01/40 9 /P1a4g e P 1a0g eo f1 101 o f P1a1g e P IaDg #e: 1ID582
#:1603
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SACV 14-0100 AG (RNBx) Date October 8, 2014
Title LANG VAN, INC. v. VNG CORPORATION, et al.
employees temporarily lived in the state eight years ago, that some “high-level executives”
occasionally travel to California, that the corporation leases several properties in California,
and that it “holds meetings in California.” (Pl.’s Opp. to Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 46, at
10:17-11:19.) These are the types of forum-related activities that might support specific
jurisdiction in a different case, but they do not approach the high standard for general
jurisdiction.
Neither is Plaintiff’s alter-ego theory persuasive. Plaintiff cites no evidence indicating that
IDG has anything more than a usual parent-subsidiary relationship with its California-based
subsidiaries. See Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 925 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The existence of
a relationship between a parent company and its subsidiaries is not sufficient to establish
personal jurisdiction over the parent on the basis of the subsidiaries’ minimum contacts with
the forum.”). Having directors in common and sharing a trademark does not make a
subsidiary an alter-ego of the parent. Nor does sharing some office space. Plaintiff alleges
no commingling of funds, failure to follow corporate formalities, undercapitalization, or
other hallmarks indicating that IDG’s control over its subsidiaries “render[s] the latter the
mere instrumentality of the former.” Id. at 926; See also Assoc. Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland
Meat Co., 210 Cal.App.2d 825, 838-40 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962) (listing various factors
considered in alter ego cases).
Therefore, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over IDG. IDG’s Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is GRANTED.
OTHER GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL
VNG and IDG both argue that there other grounds for dismissal. VNG contends it was
improperly served, while IDG asserts a 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim. Because the Court
has already decided it lacks jurisdiction over the defendants, these arguments will not be
considered.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 10 of 11
11. CaCsea s8e:1 84:-1c4v--c0v0-100001-0A0G-A-RGN-RBN BD o Dcuomcuemnte 5n6t 5 7F-i1le d F 1il0e/d0 81/01/40 9 /P1a4g e P 1a1g eo f1 111 o f P1a1g e P IaDg #e: 1ID583
#:1604
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SACV 14-0100 AG (RNBx) Date October 8, 2014
Title LANG VAN, INC. v. VNG CORPORATION, et al.
DISPOSITION
VNG’s Motion to Dismiss and IDG’s Motion to Dismiss are GRANTED.
: 0
Initials of
Preparer lmb
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 11 of 11