Ever run into that situation where a motion to dismiss is followed by an amended complaint and you’re left scratching your head trying to figure out where that leaves you procedurally? Well wonder no more, because this recent opinion collects the cases and explains the pleadings version of rock, paper, scissors.
My wife and I organize our visits to New Orleans around food – specifically bread pudding. If time permits, we’ll hit Palace Cafe for white chocolate bread pudding, Commander’s Palace (where we were engaged, by the way) for the bread pudding souffle, and BonTon for, um, whiskey garnished with a little bread pudding. All good, but different. Motions are like that too. In the last month I’ve posted on Twiqbal decisions by Judges Payne, Mazzant and Albright, and a few weeks earlier, Judge Kernodle. Today I have the same analysis but with its own unique flavor (perhaps honey?) from Judge Gilstrap.
It’s a short order, but if I had an order that said “[i]n its well-researched and written motion” about my motion, I’d be puffed up like a toad. Well, at least until I got to the part that it was denied anyway.
This is a Twiqbal motion in a patent infringement case that seeks dismissal for failure to state a claim, asserting that the facts alleged in the complaint are insufficient to state a claim that is “plausible.” The Court’s analysis provides a useful example of what needs to be in a complaint to meet this standard.
It never fails – I posted on all the dispositive motion rulings that have come out from Franklin Avenue, and another one pops up. So let’s see what we can learn about the sufficiency of infringement pleadings this afternoon.
Next up on our tour of the Waco patent docket to date is rulings on dispositive motions. What’s been argued, what’s been granted, and what hasn’t?
While motions to dismiss pleadings on any one of a variety of grounds are fairly routine, this is one of those cases where the cook decided to toss some peanut butter, cilantro and carrots into the pancake batter, and the court had to step in to consider where the line needed to be drawn. Oh, and there’s a stay request too.
Chief Justice Roberts’ famous description of judging as “calling balls and strikes” is correct as far as it goes, but in many cases trial courts play an additional role managing traffic as cases and motions are filed.
The plaintiff in this patent case brought a motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaims of patent infringement (no, not noninfringement – I know what you’re thinking), promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment. The Court’s report and recommendations, later adopted by the district court, provides a useful foray into the “dancing backwards” world of counterclaims.
Motions to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(c) are not the most favored motions in the world. For that reason, this EDTX order arising out of the world of college basketball granting one in part is helpful to practitioners because it shows the type of grounds that can be successful across a variety of claims. Although, in fairness, it might be better categorized as showing the arguments that are likely to be unsuccessful.