Attorneys for Defendant ArcSoft, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ArcSoft, Inc., dba as Closeli and as
simplicam,
Defendant.
Case No. CV-15-0056 BEN (DHB)
DEFENDANT ARCSOFT, INC.’S
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION’S
AMENDED NOTICE OF RELATED
CASE
District Judge: Hon. Roger T. Benitez
Magistrate Judge: Hon. David H.Bartick
On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation filed an Amended Notice of Related Cases identifying two cases pending in the Northern District of California.
Plaintiff appears to rely on Civil L.R. 40.1 to seek transfer of the present case to the Northern District of California. Defendant ArcSoft, Inc. opposes any such transfer.
The two identified Northern District of California cases are:
1) e.Digital Corporation v. Dropcam, Inc., Case Number: 3:14-cv-04922- JST (“the Dropcam Case”), originally filed in the Southern District of California on July 1, 2014; transferred to the Northern District of California following grant of Defendant Dropcam, Inc.’s motion to transfer venue on November 5, 2014.
2) e.Digital Corporation v. Digital Corporation v. ShenZhen Gospell
Smarthome Electronic Co., Ltd. (dba Oco Camera), Case Number 4:15-cv-00691- JST (“the Oco Case”), originally filed on February 13, 2015 in the Northern District
of California.The Dropcam Case and the Oco Case are assigned to the Honorable Judge Jon
S. Tigar. Plaintiff’s reliance on a Local Rule of one district to seek transfer to another district is improper. Civil L.R. 40.1, “Assignment of Civil Cases,” is a Local Ruleof the Southern District of California and deals with case assignment and transfers within the Southern District: “The judge to whom a case is assigned, or the chief
judge of the district, may transfer such a case at any time to a consenting judge in the interest of efficient administration of the judicial business of the district.” Civil
L.R. 40.1(a) (emphasis added). Further, Plaintiff’s reliance on the Local Rule seeks to circumvent Plaintiff’s
burden of proof required to establish that venue is proper in the transferee district and convenient for the parties. Plaintiff chose to bring the present case against ArcSoft in the Southern District. In fact, Plaintiff also initially chose to bring the case against Dropcam, Inc. in the Southern District and the case was transferred only after Defendant Dropcam, Inc. filed a motion to transfer which Plaintiff opposed. In the present case, Defendant ArcSoft does not intend to move to transfer,does not believe venue in the Northern District of California is proper or convenient,
and will oppose Plaintiff’s motion to transfer.
Dated: May 6, 2015 FISH &RICHARDSON P.C.
By: /s/ Olga May
Olga May
Attorneys for Defendant, ArcSoft, Inc.
