Luminati Networks, Ltd. v. BIScience Inc.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
May 13, 2019, Decided; May 13, 2019, Filed
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-00483-JRG
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant BIScience Inc.'s ("BIScience") Motion to Dismiss, and in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue (the "First Motion to Dismiss"). (Dkt. No. 15.) Additionally, before the Court is BIScience's Second Motion to Dismiss, and in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue (the "Second Motion to Dismiss") (Dkt. No. 36), as well as Plaintiff Luminati Networks Ltd.'s ("Luminati") Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss (the "Motion to Strike") (Dkt. No. 40). Finally, before the Court is Luminati's Motion for Early Venue Discovery. (Dkt. No. 22.)
Having considered these motions and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds that Luminati's Motion [*2] to Strike should be and hereby is DENIED. The Court further finds that BIScience's First Motion to Dismiss should be and hereby is DENIED AS MOOT. BIScience's Second Motion to Dismiss should be and hereby is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. BIScience's Second Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to Luminati's claim for tortious interference with employment agreements, but is otherwise DENIED. Also, Luminati's Motion for Early Venue Discovery is DENIED AS MOOT. new pleading, the court simply may consider the motion as being addressed to the amended pleading.").
The Court finds that the proper course is to deny the First Motion to Dismiss as mooted by the First Amended Complaint.
Luminati argues that its First Amended Complaint did not necessarily moot the First Motion to Dismiss and, as a result, the Second Motion to Dismiss is a duplicative motion that represents an abusive litigation tactic. (Dkt. No. 40, at 5-6.) While Luminati is correct that other courts have found motions to dismiss and motions to transfer not mooted by amended complaints, these courts recognized that it was an act of their "discretion" to consider such motions to the extent "such a motion remains applicable." [*3] WowWee Grp. Ltd. v. Wallace, CV-12-2298-MWF(VBKx), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199343, 2012 WL 13013022, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2012). Indeed, it is within the Court's discretion to consider a motion directed to a superseded pleading where the motion remains applicable to the amended pleading—that is, where the amended pleading has not addressed the defects raised in the motion. However, it is equally within the discretion of the Court to deny such motion where it is not applicable. The Court finds that the latter situation is present here. This decision is largely facilitated by BIScience's filing of its Second Motion to Dismiss.
The purpose of interpreting a motion directed at a superseded complaint as one directed at the amended complaint is to save time and resources in situations where the motion is fairly applicable to amended complaint, not to unfairly tie the hands of the movant in situations where it is not. The plaintiff should not be allowed to amend its complaint in response to a motion and then require the movant to rest on its outdated briefing.Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79843 *; 2019 WL 2084426
LUMINATI NETWORKS LTD., Plaintiff, v. BISCIENCE INC., Defendant.
Subsequent History: Motion denied by, As moot Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BI Sci. Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102330 (E.D. Tex., June 19, 2019)
Related proceeding at, Patent interpreted by, Motion denied by Luminati Networks Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141513 (E.D. Tex., Aug. 20, 2019)
Patent interpreted by Luminati Networks Ltd. v. BIScience Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210544 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 6, 2019)
Luminati's, motion to dismiss, venue, proxy, personal jurisdiction, trade secret, misappropriation, allegations, amended complaint, tortious interference, witnesses, factors, employment agreement, customers, advertising, argues, moot, supplemental jurisdiction, motion to transfer, false advertising, parties, blog, Lanham Act, declaration, residential, conspiracy, convenient, posts, infringement, Discovery