Federal Judiciary

Crunch Time for the "Ab Rocket" Docket: Claims Against Manufacturer Severed and Transfer; Claims Against Retailers Stayed

By Michael C. Smith

Shifferaw v. Emson USA et al, 2:09cv0054 (E.D. Tex., 3/18/10)

Judge: Chad Everingham

Motion to Sever Claims GRANTED

I'm sorry - it was there - I had to say it. 

Defendants, the manufacturer and retailers of the "Ab Rocket" sought to sever a manufacturer/designer/importer defendant from a group of retailer defendants and transfer the claims against it.  "This is an unusual case because the court normally denies such severance and transfer requests," Judge Everingham wrote.  "In most instances, the interests of justice would not be favored by such a severance and transfer.  However, based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the court GRANTS the defendants? motion for the following reasons." (Internal citations omitted)

What were those facts?  Well, the single manufacturer is the only entity in the U.S. who makes and sells the only accused product to retailers, and in such a situation the Court held that a patent infringement claim against the retailer is peripheral to the claims against the manufacturer.  Severance was also appropriate because adjudication of the remaining claims against the manufacturer would likely dispose of the plaintiff's claims against the severed defendants.  Further, the fact that the retailer defendants were willing to stipulate that they will be bound by the rulings by the Southern District of New York court in the case against the manufacturer weighed heavily towards a finding that adjudication of the claims against the manufacturer would likely dispose of the rest of the case.

Following the severance of the manufacturer defendant from the retailer defendants, the court transferred the case against the manufacturer and stayed the claims against the retailers. "None of the underlying actions in this case occurred in this district. In contrast, [the manufacturer defendant] is located in the Southern District of New York, and almost all of its employees are located in New York, and substantially all of [its] underlying actions to this suit originated in New York. Therefore, the court finds that this factor favors transfer."

From DocketNavigator.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on March 22, 2010 (boomark / email).