Friday, September 05, 2008

Judge Whyte to Samsung "See you September 22"

In a desperate attempt to escape the inevitable - now that the "Steinberg Defense" is no more, Samsung sought to dismiss claims against Rambus in one court and move them to another perhaps friendlier court or at a minimum, to delay.

The eternally patient Judge Ronald M. Whyte, denied Samsung's motion, stating that to grant Samsung's motion would be "enormously prejudicial to Rambus."

In determining whether to permit a plaintiff leave to amend under Rule 15, [p]rejudice to the opposing party is the most important factor." Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir. 1990). Such prejudice exists here. Samsung's motion comes with less than a month until trial. It is enormously prejudicial to Rambus to allow Samsung to dismiss its claims now and permit it to move this trial to state court and without the existing record already developed in the almost eight weeks of trial that occurred before this court in January. This will impose both an undue delay and substantial additional costs on Rambus. Accord AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006). Because the ample prejudice to Rambus justifies denying Samsung's motion to amend its complaint, the court does not reach the close questions of whether Samsung's motion is made in bad faith or with dilatory motive, which would provide separate grounds for denying a motion to amend a complaint. See, e.g., Moore v. Kayport Package Exp., Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 538 (9th Cir. 1989).

DATED: 9/5/2008
United States District Judge

No comments:

Personal Blogs - Blog Top Sites