Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle International Corporation
Opinion
1 BOIES, SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP RICHARD J. POCKER (NV Bar No. 3568) SAMUEL LIVERSIDGE (pro hac vice) 2 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 800 ERIC D. VANDEVELDE (pro hac vice) Las Vegas, NV 89101 ILISSA S. SAMPLIN (pro hac vice) 3 Telephone: 702.382.7300 333 South Grand Avenue Facsimile: 702.382.2755 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 4 rpocker@bsfllp.com Telephone: 213.229.7000 sliversidge@gibsondunn.com 5 DUNN ISAACSON RHEE LLP evandevelde@gibsondunn.com WILLIAM A. ISAACSON (pro hac vice) isamplin@gibsondunn.com 6 KAREN DUNN (pro hac vice) JESSICA PHILLIPS (pro hac vice) GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 7 401 9th Street, NW BLAINE H. EVANSON (pro hac vice) Washington, DC 20004 CASEY J. MCCRACKEN (pro hac vice) 8 Telephone: 202.240.2900 JOSEPH A. GORMAN (pro hac vice) wisaacson@dirllp.com 3161 Michelson Drive 9 kdunn@dirllp.com Irvine, CA 92612-4412 jphillips@dirllp.com Telephone: 949.451.3800 10 jtthomas@gibsondunn.com MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP bevanson@gibsondunn.com 11 BENJAMIN P. SMITH (pro hac vice) cmccracken@gibsondunn.com One Market, Spear Street Tower jgorman@gibsondunn.com 12 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415.442.1000 HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC 13 Facsimile: 415.442.1001 W.WEST ALLEN (Nevada Bar No. 5566) benjamin.smith@morganlewis.com 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1000 14 sharon.smith@morganlewis.com Las Vegas, NV 89169 Telephone: 702.667.4843 15 JAMES C. MAROULIS (pro hac vice) wwa@h2law.com ORACLE CORPORATION 16 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 RIMINI STREET, INC. Redwood City, CA 94070 JOHN P. REILLY (pro hac vice) 17 Telephone: 650.506.4846 1700 S. Pavilion Center Drive, Suite 330 Facsimile: 650.506.7114 Las Vegas, NV 89135 18 dorian.daley@oracle.com Telephone: 336.908.6961 jim.maroulis@oracle.com jreilly@riministreet.com 19 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle International WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 20 Corporation and Oracle America, Inc. MARK A. PERRY (pro hac vice) 2001 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 21 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202.682.7511 22 mark.perry@weil.com 23 Attorneys for Defendants Rimini Street, Inc., and Seth Ravin 24 25 26 27 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORP., and CASE NO. 2:14-cv-01699-MMD-DJA ORACLE AMERICA, INC., 5 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiffs, STIPULATION TO STAY ALL 6 PROCEEDINGS PENDING 7 v. SETTLEMENT RESOLUTION AND TO VACATE THE SCHEDULING ORDER 8 RIMINI STREET, INC., and SETH RAVIN, Judge: Hon. Miranda M. Du 9 Defendants. 10 JOINT STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND 11 VACATE SCHEDULING ORDER 12 Plaintiffs Oracle International Corp. and Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) and Defendants 13 Rimini Street, Inc. and Seth Ravin (collectively, “Rimini,” and with Oracle, the “Parties”) executed 14 a settlement agreement with an effective date of July 7, 2025 (“Settlement Agreement”) to resolve 15 the entirety of this case pending Rimini’s wind down of its offering of support services for Oracle’s 16 PeopleSoft software product, and therefore, by and through their respective counsel of record, 17 respectfully request that this Court (1) stay all proceedings in this case and (2) vacate all current 18 deadlines and hearing dates set forth in the existing Scheduling Order (ECF No. 1637) to allow 19 the Parties to perform under and effectuate the Settlement Agreement. 20 1. WHEREAS, on July 31, 2024, Rimini unilaterally announced its decision to wind 21 down its offering of support services for Oracle’s PeopleSoft software product; 22 2. WHEREAS, following remand from the Ninth Circuit in March 2025, the only 23 product line at issue in the pending remand proceedings is PeopleSoft; 24 3. WHEREAS, on June 26, 2025, the Parties conducted a successful in-person 25 mediation; 26 27 1 4. WHEREAS, the parties seek to avoid the time and expense of further litigation 2 concerning alleged copyright infringement of a software product Rimini has represented it will no 3 longer support; 4 5. WHEREAS, the Parties’ full performance under the Parties’ Settlement Agreement 5 will fully resolve the entirety of this litigation, including all issues remanded by the Ninth Circuit, 6 as well as any dispute regarding attorneys’ fees, although the Parties agree that this Court will 7 retain jurisdiction to enforce, as necessary, the permanent injunction entered in the Rimini I action 8 (Rimini I ECF No. 1166; Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St. Inc., 783 F. App’x 707, 710-711 (9th Cir. 9 2019)), as well as the Modified Permanent Injunction entered in this action (ECF No. 1635); 10 6. WHEREAS, under the Settlement Agreement, Rimini will complete its previously 11 announced wind down of support services related to PeopleSoft by no later than July 31, 2028; 12 7. WHEREAS, following Rimini’s successful completion of the wind down as 13 described in the Settlement Agreement, and Rimini’s notice to Oracle of such completion in 14 compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement (including a declaration under penalty of 15 perjury that Rimini has in fact completed its wind down), Oracle has agreed to dismiss this case 16 with prejudice; 17 8. WHEREAS, the Parties agree that a stay of all proceedings during the wind down 18 period serves the interests of judicial economy by vacating all existing deadlines provided in this 19 Court’s Scheduling Order (ECF No. 1637) such that the Court will be substantially relieved of any 20 further administration of this case; 21 9. WHEREAS, in the unlikely event of an unexpected material breach of the 22 Settlement Agreement during the wind down, the Parties jointly agree that it would be more 23 efficient to lift the stay and resume the proceedings in this matter rather than requiring the non- 24 breaching Party to commence new litigation; 25 10. WHEREAS, the Court may “stay[] the case while retaining jurisdiction over 26 possible disputes concerning compliance with a settlement agreement” under Kokkonen v. 27 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381–82 (1994) and its inherent authority to control 1 Mass. 2012) (granting three-year stay to allow the parties to perform under a settlement 2 agreement); 3 11. WHEREAS, a stay of proceedings will not harm the Parties, will avoid the 4 additional hardship of continuing to actively litigate this decade-long dispute, will allow the parties 5 to focus exclusively on satisfying the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and will promote judicial 6 economy, see Epstein v. US Foods, Inc., 2025 WL 330544, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 29, 2025) 7 (describing factors courts consider in evaluating a request for a stay and granting joint stipulation 8 to stay “to allow the mediation process to play out”); In re W. States Wholesale Nat. Gas Antitrust 9 Litig., 2019 WL 2098350 (D. Nev. Apr. 5, 2019) (staying all proceedings “until further order of 10 the Court, except such proceedings as may be necessary either to implement the Settlements or to 11 comply with or effectuate the terms of the Agreements or Fed. R. Civ. P. 23”); 12 12. THEREFORE, the Parties stipulate and agree that all proceedings in this matter 13 should be stayed for the duration of the three-year wind down period required to effectuate the 14 Parties’ agreement to settle the above-captioned matter, and that all deadlines set forth in the 15 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 1637) should be vacated. 16 Dated: July 17, 2025 17 18 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 19 By: /s/ Eric D. Vandevelde By: /s/ Benjamin P. Smith 20 Eric D. Vandevelde Benjamin P. Smith 21 Attorneys for Defendants Rimini Street, Inc., Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle and Seth Ravin International Corporation and Oracle 22 America, Inc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle International Corporation (Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle International Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.