Valve Corporation v. Rothschild

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 11, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01016
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 VALVE CORPORATION, CASE NO. 23-cv-1016 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 DENYING IN PART STIPULATED v. MOTION 10 LEIGH ROTHSCHILD; ROTHSCHILD 11 BROADCAST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, LLC; DISPLAY 12 TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; PATENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC; 13 MEYLER LEGAL, PLLC; SAMUEL MEYLER, 14 Defendants. 15

16 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 17 This matter comes before the Court on the parties stipulated order regarding 18 Plaintiff Valve Corporation’s second amended complaint, filed December 4, 2023. 19 Dkt. No. 33. 20 Valve filed its Complaint on July 7, 2023, and Defendants filed their first 21 motion to dismiss the Complaint on September 18, 2023. Dkt. Nos. 1, 18. Valve did 22 not file a response to Defendants’ first motion to dismiss. See Dkt. Instead, Valve 23 1 filed its First Amended Complaint on October 6, 2023, and a Motion to Seal Exhibit 2 6 (for Exhibit 6 to the First Amended Complaint) on October 13, 2023. Dkt. Nos. 23,

3 24. Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on October 20, 4 2023. Dkt. Nos. 27. Valve responded to Defendants’ second motion to dismiss on 5 December 4, 2023, and Defendants filed their reply on December 15, 2023. Dkt. Nos. 6 34, 36. Defendants’ renoted their motion to dismiss from December 8, 2023, to 7 December 15, 2023. Dkt. No. 35.1 8 Now, the parties stipulate to Valve amending its First Amended Complaint to

9 file a Second Amended Complaint dismissing Count V (Conspiracy). Dkt. No. 33 at 10 2. The parties request that their “briefing already filed in connection with 11 Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC [to] apply to the allegations and claims in 12 the [Second Amended Complaint] that remain unchanged from the [First Amended 13 Complaint].” Id. 14 2. ANALYSIS 15 First, the parties have stipulated to Valve filing a second amended complaint.

16 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (a party may “amend its pleading only with the opposing 17 party’s written consent or the court’s leave” and “[t]he court should freely give leave 18 when justice so requires.”). Even when the parties stipulate to an amended 19 pleading, however, they “must attach a copy of the proposed amended pleading as 20 an exhibit to the … stipulated motion.” LCR 15. The parties have not complied with 21 the letter of the Local Rule. Even so, the Court grants Valve leave to amend based

22 1 Defendants moved to transfer on October 19, 2023, which the Court does not 23 consider in this Order. Dkt. No. 26. 1 on the parties’ representation that the only change is to dismiss Count V of the 2 First Amended Complaint. If any other alterations are made or contemplated,

3 however, the parties must strictly comply with LCR 15. 4 With the latest amendment, Valve’s Second Amended Complaint becomes the 5 operative complaint, meaning that the Court must treat its First Amended 6 Complaint as “non-existent.” See Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 7 2010) (“As a general rule, when a plaintiff files an amended complaint, ‘the 8 amended complaint supercedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as

9 non-existent.”’). That is why the Court declines the parties’ invitation to apply 10 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint to the soon-to- 11 be-filed Second Amended Complaint. Even if the differences between the amended 12 complaints are minimal, there are still differences nevertheless and it would be 13 imprudent for the Court to guess about whether and which arguments in the 14 briefing still applied to the Second Amended Complaint. 15 Accordingly, to the extent Valve files a Second Amended Complaint,

16 Defendants’ motions to dismiss Valve’s original and First Amended Complaints are 17 moot. The same would also be true of Valve’s motion to Seal Exhibit 6, as it relates 18 to an exhibit attached to its First Amended Complaint. See Dkt. Nos. 23-6, 24; see 19 also LCR 15 (“The proposed amended pleading must not incorporate by reference 20 any part of the preceding pleading, including exhibits.”). 21 Assuming Valve files its Second Amended Complaint, it may renew its

22 motion to seal and Defendants may renew their motion to dismiss. See CMAX, Inc. 23 v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (“A district court has inherent power to 1 control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will promote 2 economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). The parties

3 may file these motions on an agreed truncated briefing schedule if they wish, or 4 they may revert to the timelines prescribed in the Local Rules. See LCR 7. 5 3. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 6 In summary, the Court ORDERS as follows: 7 1. The parties’ stipulated motion regarding Plaintiff’s Second Amended 8 Complaint is GRANTED in part. Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiff may file its

9 Second Amended Complaint, so long as the amendments are limited as 10 described in the parties stipulated motion. Plaintiff must file its 11 Second Amended Complaint within five days of this Order. 12 2. The parties’ stipulated motion is DENIED in all other respects. Dkt. 13 No. 33. 14 Dated this 11th day of January, 2024. 15

16 A 17 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 18

19 20 21 22 23