Case 2:13-cv-05980-SJO-PJW Document 112 Filed 01/14/14 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:1733
`JS-6
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`Priority
`
`Send
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`Enter
`
`Closed
`
`JS-5/JS-6
`
`Scan Only
`
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`DATE: January 14, 2014
`
`CASE NO.: CV 13-05980 SJO (PJWx)
`Applies to All Related Cases
`CV 13-06054 SJO (PJWx)
`CV 13-06055 SJO (PJWx)
`CV 13-06062 SJO (PJWx)
`TITLE:
`Black Hills Media, LLC v. Pioneer Corporation, et al.
`LEAD CASE - Applies to All Coordinated Actions
`========================================================================
`PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Victor Paul Cruz
`Courtroom Clerk
`
`Not Present
`Court Reporter
`
`COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF(S):
`
`COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT(S):
`
`Not Present
`
`Not Present
`
`========================================================================
`PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
`[Docket No. 106]
`
`This matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") under Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 12(b)(1) ("Rule 12(b)(1)"), filed by Defendants Pioneer Corporation and Pioneer
`Electronics (USA), Inc. (collectively, "Pioneer"); Yamaha Corporation of America ("Yamaha"); and
`Sonos Inc. ("Sonos") (collectively with Yamaha and Pioneer, "Defendants") on December 11,
`2013. On December 23, 2013, Plaintiff Black Hills Media, LLC ("Plaintiff") filed an Opposition. On
`December 30, 2013, Defendants filed a Reply in support of the Motion. The Court found this
`matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the following
`reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion.
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`On May 22, 2012, Plaintiff filed Complaints against Pioneer, Yamaha, and Sonos in the United
`States District Court for the District of Delaware.1 In all of these cases, Plaintiff alleged that
`Defendants had infringed three of Plaintiff's patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,045,952 ("the '952
`Patent"); 8,050,652 ("the '652 Patent"); and 6,985,694 ("the '694 Patent"). (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 16, 20,
`
`1 Plaintiff also originally filed suit against Defendant Logitech International S.A., later
`replaced with Logitech, LLC and Logitech, Inc. (collectively, "Logitech"). Order Granting
`Stip. of Dismissal, Black Hills Media, LLC v. Logitech, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-06055-SJO-PJW
`(C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2012) ("Logitech Case"), ECF No. 11. For ease of reference, all
`citations are made to Central District of California docket numbers, even for documents
`originally filed in the District of Delaware.
`
`MINUTES FORM 11
`CIVIL GEN
`
`Page 1 of 7
`
` :
`Initials of Preparer
`
`SONOS 1007 - Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-05980-SJO-PJW Document 112 Filed 01/14/14 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:1734
`JS-6
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`CASE NO.: CV 13-05980 SJO (PJWx)
`Applies to All Related Cases
`CV 13-06054 SJO (PJWx)
`CV 13-06055 SJO (PJWx)
`CV 13-06062 SJO (PJWx)
`
`DATE: January 14, 2014
`
`ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff also asserted an additional five patents against Sonos (collectively with the
`'952 Patent, the '652 Patent, and the '694 Patent, "First Asserted Patents"). Compl., Black Hills
`Media, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-06062-SJO-PJW (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2012), ("Sonos
`Case"), ECF No. 1. In all three Complaints, Plaintiff stated that it "owns all of the rights and
`interests in" the asserted patents. (Compl. ¶ 6, Pioneer Case.) See also Compl. ¶ 6, Black Hills
`Media, LLC v. Yamaha Corp. of Am., No. 2:13-cv-06054-SJO-PJW (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2012)
`("Yamaha Case"), ECF No. 1; Compl. ¶ 6, Sonos Case (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2012), ECF No. 1.
`
`Despite these allegations in the Complaints, Plaintiff did not in fact own all rights and interests in
`the First Asserted Patents on May 22, 2012, when it filed the cases. (Mot. 5-6; Notice of Chain
`of Title Regarding Patents-In-Suit ("Chain of Title") 2-4, ECF No. 104.) In fact, Plaintiff did not take
`ownership of the patents until July 23, 2012, more than two months after filing the Complaints.
`(Chain of Title, 2-4.) Plaintiff does not dispute these facts. (Opp'n 2, ECF No. 109.)
`
`Having not yet served the original Complaint, Plaintiff filed amended Complaints in all three cases
`in September 2012 "as a matter of course" under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) ("Rule
`15(a)"). (First Am. Compl., Pioneer Case, ECF No. 3.) See also First Am. Compl., Yamaha Case
`(C.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2012), ECF No. 3; First Am. Compl., Sonos Case (C.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2012),
`ECF No. 3 (collectively, "FACs"). In the FACs, Plaintiff asserted three more patents against the
`Defendants: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,108,686 ("the '686 Patent"); 8,230,099 ("the '099 Patent"); and
`8,214,873 ("the '873 Patent"). Because all three cases (and the Logitech Case) included a
`common core of six patents and Logitech and the other Defendants offered the same or similar
`affirmative defenses, the Court treated the cases as related. (Notice of Related Cases 1, ECF No.
`52.)
`
`In January 2013, Yamaha, Logitech, and Sonos filed motions to transfer the case from the District
`of Delaware to the Central District of California. Mot. to Transfer, Yamaha Case (Jan. 22, 2013),
`ECF No. 14; Mot. to Transfer, Logitech Case (Jan. 11, 2013), ECF No. 17; Mot. to Transfer,
`Sonos Case (Jan. 23, 2013), ECF No. 11. On August 5, 2013, the Delaware District Court granted
`the motions to transfer the cases to the Central District of California. Order Granting Mot. to
`Transfer, Yamaha Case (Aug. 5, 2013), ECF No. 31; Order Granting Mot. to Transfer, Logitech
`Case (Aug. 5, 2013), ECF No. 33; Order Granting Mot. to Transfer, Sonos Case (Aug. 5, 2013),
`ECF No. 26. The Delaware District Court sua sponte transferred the Pioneer case as well. (Order
`Transferring Case to C.D. Cal., ECF No. 21.) On September 24, 2013, the Court ordered the
`Pioneer Case, the Yamaha Case, the Logitech Case, and the Sonos case consolidated and
`permitted Plaintiff to file Second Amended Complaints in all four cases. (Minute Order, ECF No.
`59.) On November 11, 2013, Plaintiff and Logitech filed a Stipulation to dismiss the Logitech
`Case, Logitech Case (Nov. 11, 2013), ECF No. 78, and on November 13, 2013, the Court
`
`Page 2 of 7
`
`SONOS 1007 - Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-05980-SJO-PJW Document 112 Filed 01/14/14 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:1735
`JS-6
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`CASE NO.: CV 13-05980 SJO (PJWx)
`Applies to All Related Cases
`CV 13-06054 SJO (PJWx)
`CV 13-06055 SJO (PJWx)
`CV 13-06062 SJO (PJWx)
`
`DATE: January 14, 2014
`
`dismissed the Logitech Case, Logitech Case (Nov. 13, 2013), ECF No. 80. On November 12,
`2013, the Court held a scheduling conference and set key dates for the case, scheduling the
`Markman Hearing on June 23, 2014; the final day to hear dispositive motions on February 9, 2015;
`and the first day of trial on April 14, 2015. (ECF No. 103.) The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file
`proof of its chain of title to the asserted patents, which Plaintiff did on November 25, 2013. (ECF
`No. 104.)
`
`On December 11, 2013, Defendants filed the instant Motion seeking to dismiss the case for lack
`of standing. On December 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Opposition. On December 30, 2013,
`Defendants filed a Reply in support of the Motion. (ECF No. 110.)
`
`II.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Defendants argue that Plaintiff lacks standing because it was not the owner of the patents on
`May 22, 2012, when the suits were originally filed. (Mot. 1.) Article III standing is a threshold
`jurisdictional issue that cannot be waived and can be raised at any time during the suit. See Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1), (3). To have standing to bring a suit for patent infringement, the plaintiff "must
`be either the patentee, a successor in title to the patentee, or an exclusive licensee of the patent
`at issue." Fieldturf, Inc. v. Sw. Recreational Indus., Inc., 357 F.3d 1266, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2004);
`see also 35 U.S.C. §§ 100(d), 281 ("A patentee shall have remedy by civil action for infringement
`of his patent," with patentee defined to include "not only the patentee to whom the patent was
`issued but also the successors in title to the patentee."). Because standing under the Patent Act
`involves questions "unique to patent law," Federal Circuit law governs patentee standing. Madey
`v. Duke Univ., 307 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Toshiba Corp. v. Wistron Corp., 270
`F.R.D. 538, 540-41 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
`
`Federal Circuit precedent makes clear that in a suit for patent infringement, "[a] court may exercise
`jurisdiction only if [the] plaintiff has standing to sue on the date it files suit." Abraxis Bioscience,
`Inc. v. Navinta LLC, 625 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The burden is on the plaintiff to
`"demonstrate that it held enforceable title to the patent at the inception of the lawsuit." Paradise
`Creations, Inc. v. UV Sales, Inc., 315 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2003). "'[I]f the original plaintiff
`lacked Article III initial standing, the suit must be dismissed, and the jurisdictional defect cannot
`be cured' after the inception of the lawsuit." Abraxis, 625 F.3d at 1364 (quoting Schreiber Foods,
`Inc. v. Beatrice Cheese, Inc., 402 F.3d 1198, 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
`
`Page 3 of 7
`
`SONOS 1007 - Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-05980-SJO-PJW Document 112 Filed 01/14/14 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:1736
`JS-6
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`CASE NO.: CV 13-05980 SJO (PJWx)
`Applies to All Related Cases
`CV 13-06054 SJO (PJWx)
`CV 13-06055 SJO (PJWx)
`CV 13-06062 SJO (PJWx)
`
`DATE: January 14, 2014
`
`Plaintiff does not claim that it held enforceable title to the patents before July 23, 2012.2 Nor does
`Plaintiff suggest that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over these cases on May 22, 2012,
`when the lawsuit was first filed. (See Opp'n 2.) Rather, Plaintiff argues that by amending its
`original Complaint "before it was served and as of right under [Rule 15(a)], the [o]riginal Complaint
`became a nullity and was wholly replaced by the First Amended Complaint." (Opp'n 3.)
`
`Thus, the issue before the Court is whether Plaintiff's amendment of the Complaint as of right
`under Rule 15(a) provides an exception to the Federal Circuit's rule requiring Plaintiff to have
`standing under the Patent Act on the day the suit was filed. It is true that the "general rule" that
`federal jurisdiction must exist on the date the suit is filed is "not absolute." Schreiber, 402 F.3d
`at 1203; see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 73 (1996) (holding that post-removal
`dismissal of a non-diverse party cured the jurisdictional defect in a diversity case under the
`removal statute). However, no court has yet squarely addressed whether an amended complaint
`as of right supercedes the original complaint in determining whether a plaintiff has standing under
`the Patent Act.
`
`Abraxis is the Federal Circuit case that comes closest to answering this question. In Abraxis, the
`Federal Circuit considered whether amending an original complaint allowed standing to be
`determined on the date of the amended complaint. The court, in finding that the plaintiff lacked
`standing to proceed with the lawsuit, held that even after an amendment, standing is determined
`from the date of the original complaint. Abraxis, 652 F.3d at 1366 n.3. Plaintiff attempts to limit
`the scope of Abraxis, arguing that it speaks only to "a very narrow set of circumstances not
`analogous with the facts here" that "a nunc pro tunc assignment cannot retroactively give a party
`standing." (Opp'n 7.) The Court disagrees. In deciding that a nunc pro tunc assignment could
`not retroactively confer standing on the plaintiff, the Federal Circuit ruled that standing was
`determined from the date of the original complaint, and not the amended complaint. Moreover,
`this was not "irrelevant dicta" (Opp'n 7), because the plaintiff in Abraxis acquired proper title to the
`patents four days before filing the amended complaint. Thus, had the Federal Circuit looked at
`the state of things on the date of the amended complaint rather than the original complaint, it
`would have found the plaintiff to have had standing. While Abraxis does not involve an
`
`2 While Plaintiff's subsidiaries may have held title to all of the asserted patents when the
`suits were first filed on May 22, 2012, (see Mot. 11-12), "an appropriate written assignment
`is necessary to transfer legal title" between a subsidiary and a parent. Abraxis, 625 F.3d
`at 1366. That Plaintiff's subsidiaries may have owned the asserted patents does not
`demonstrate that Plaintiff itself held enforceable title to the patents when the lawsuits were
`first filed.
`
`Page 4 of 7
`
`SONOS 1007 - Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-05980-SJO-PJW Document 112 Filed 01/14/14 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:1737
`JS-6
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`CASE NO.: CV 13-05980 SJO (PJWx)
`Applies to All Related Cases
`CV 13-06054 SJO (PJWx)
`CV 13-06055 SJO (PJWx)
`CV 13-06062 SJO (PJWx)
`
`DATE: January 14, 2014
`
`amendment under Rule 15(a), it nonetheless stands for the general rule that courts look to the
`date the original, and not amended, complaint was filed to determine standing under the Patent
`Act.
`
`Plaintiff attempts to discount this holding in Abraxis by offering up the Supreme Court's statement
`in Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States that "when a plaintiff files a complaint in federal court and
`then voluntarily amends the complaint, courts look to the amended complaint to determine
`jurisdiction." 549 U.S. 457, 473-74 (2007). However, Plaintiff's analysis overlooks important
`distinctions between Abraxis and Rockwell. The court in Rockwell had jurisdiction over the original
`complaint when it was first filed, and the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the
`amended complaint divested the court of that existing jurisdiction. Id. at 473. The Supreme Court
`determined that it did so. Id. The opposite was true in Abraxis, where the court had no jurisdiction
`over the original complaint, and the amended complaint would therefore grant the court jurisdiction
`that would not otherwise exist. The Federal Circuit expressly noted this distinction in deciding not
`to follow Rockwell in a different case where the court had no jurisdiction over the original
`complaint. Cent. Pines Land Co. v. United States, 697 F.3d 1360, 1366 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`Here, as in Abraxis and Central Pines, the Court has no jurisdiction over Plaintiff's original
`Complaint.
`
`Plaintiff also cites to ConnectU LLC v. Zuckerberg, where the First Circuit based its jurisdictional
`analysis on an amended-as-of-right complaint when the plaintiff changed the basis of the court's
`jurisdiction from diversity to federal question. 522 F.3d 82, 91-96 (1st Cir. 2008). Here, Plaintiff's
`basis for jurisdiction has not changed. Furthermore, the First Circuit was careful to note that it did
`not intend to discard the time-of-filing rule, which would continue to apply, "most obviously in
`diversity cases . . . where heightened concerns about forum-shopping and strategic behavior offer
`special justifications for it." Id. at 92. Thus, the holding distinguishes between federal question
`jurisdiction, where jurisdiction is determined from the filing of the amended-as-of-right complaint,
`and diversity jurisdiction, where jurisdiction is determined from the filing of the original complaint.
`The issue of patentee standing is closer to diversity jurisdiction, as courts may have concerns
`about strategic filing behavior by patentees to avoid disclosing the ultimate owner of the patent.
`Moreover, the Federal Circuit has made clear that the time-of-filing rule applies to determining
`standing under the Patent Act just as it applies in the diversity context. See Abraxis, 625 F.3d at
`1364.
`
`Other cases cited by Plaintiff similarly fail to directly address the issue at dispute in this case. For
`example, Plaintiff quotes Williams Advanced Materials, Inc. v. Target Tech. Co., 03-CV-00276AM,
`2009 WL 3644357, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2009), for the proposition that "[i]t is well established
`that an amended complaint 'supercedes the original, and renders it of no legal effect.'" (Opp'n 3.)
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`SONOS 1007 - Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-05980-SJO-PJW Document 112 Filed 01/14/14 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:1738
`JS-6
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`CASE NO.: CV 13-05980 SJO (PJWx)
`Applies to All Related Cases
`CV 13-06054 SJO (PJWx)
`CV 13-06055 SJO (PJWx)
`CV 13-06062 SJO (PJWx)
`
`DATE: January 14, 2014
`
`At first glance, Williams seems directly on-point, as the court based its determination of the
`plaintiff's standing to sue for patent infringement on the facts as they stood on the date of the
`amended complaint rather than the original complaint. Williams, 2009 WL 3644357, at *6.
`However, the amendment in Williams was not made under Rule 15(a), but rather required
`approval by the court. Id. at 2. Thus, the court's reasoning in Williams is directly contravened by
`the Federal Circuit's later decision in Abraxis. 652 F.3d at 1366 n.3 ("While [the plaintiff] filed an
`amended complaint on November 16, 2007, we look to the date of the original Complaint,
`March 15, 2007, because 'the jurisdiction of the Court depends on the state of things at the time
`of the action brought.'" (citation omitted)). An important difference also distinguishes the analysis
`in Barnes and Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 823 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Cal. 2011), from the analysis
`here. (Opp'n 4.) There, the court allowed a party seeking a declaratory judgment for non-
`infringement to amend as a matter of right to add the actual owner of nine of the ten patents
`disputed in the case, but this decision was based at least in part on the fact that "there [was] no
`dispute that this Court had federal jurisdiction over the original complaint herein since [the alleged
`defendant] was the owner of one of the patents at issue." Barnes and Noble, 823 F. Supp. 2d at
`985. Here, Plaintiff does not claim that the Court properly had federal jurisdiction over the lawsuit
`when it filed the original Complaint on May 22, 2012.
`
`Policy considerations also guide the Court in its decision to apply the time-of-filing rule given by
`Abraxis to situations where the amendment is of right. The Federal Circuit addressed some of
`these concerns in Enzo APA & Son, Inc. v. Geapag A.G., when it held that post-filing assignments
`of patent title did not confer standing retroactively:
`
`As a general matter, parties should possess rights before seeking to
`have them vindicated in court. Allowing a subsequent assignment to
`automatically cure a standing defect would unjustifiably expand the
`number of people who are statutorily authorized to sue. Parties could
`justify the premature initiation of an action by averring to the court that
`their standing through assignment is imminent. Permitting non-owners
`and licensees the right to sue, so long as they eventually obtain the
`rights they seek to have redressed, would enmesh the judiciary in
`abstract disputes, risk multiple litigation, and provide incentives for
`parties to obtain assignment in order to expand their arsenal and the
`scope of litigation. Inevitably, delay and expense would be the order
`of the day.
`
`134 F.3d 1090, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Procter & Gamble Co. v. Paragon Trade Brands,
`Inc., 917 F. Supp. 305, 310 (D. Del. 1995)). Similar concerns are present here, where allowing
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`SONOS 1007 - Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-05980-SJO-PJW Document 112 Filed 01/14/14 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:1739
`JS-6
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
`
`CASE NO.: CV 13-05980 SJO (PJWx)
`Applies to All Related Cases
`CV 13-06054 SJO (PJWx)
`CV 13-06055 SJO (PJWx)
`CV 13-06062 SJO (PJWx)
`
`DATE: January 14, 2014
`
`Plaintiff's suggested rule could incentivize a party to bring suit for patent infringement without
`owning the patents. That party could then withhold service of the complaint and enter settlement
`negotiations with the alleged infringers. While patent transfers may be recorded with the Patent
`and Trademark Office, it is not required, 35 U.S.C. § 261, so the alleged infringers could not be
`certain of the validity of the plaintiff's claimed title. If the settlement negotiations succeed, the
`plaintiff receives a windfall. If not, it could continue with the lawsuit, so long as it then properly
`obtained title and filed an amended complaint as a matter of course. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)
`(requiring service within 120 days after filing of the complaint); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (allowing a
`plaintiff to amend its complaint as a matter of course up to 21 days after receiving an answer or
`motion). This would "unjustifiably expand the number of people who are statutorily authorized to
`sue" and "enmesh the judiciary in abstract disputes, risk multiple litigation, and provide incentives
`for parties to obtain assignment in order to expand their arsenal and the scope of litigation." Enzo,
`134 F.3d at 1093-94.
`
`Furthermore, allowing plaintiffs to file without proper title would make it easier for plaintiffs to
`conceal a patent's true owner. This would decrease the transparency of patent ownership, an
`attribute of the patent system that has been a matter of public concern, and which Congress is
`currently looking to strengthen, not weaken. See Innovation Act of 2013, H.R. 3309, 113th Cong.
`§ 4 (2013) (seeking to improve the transparency of patent ownership with increased disclosure
`requirements). Weak disclosure requirements currently allow patent owners to hide their identity
`(and their assets) behind layers of shell companies. Following Plaintiff's suggested rule would give
`this type of plaintiff another tool to avoid transparency by allowing claims by shell companies that
`do not even own the patents they assert. The Court does not wish to reward parties who
`aggressively seek to vindicate rights not yet theirs. For these reasons, the Court grants
`Defendants' Motion and dismisses without prejudice the Pioneer Case (CV 13-05980 SJO
`(PJWx)), the Yamaha Case (CV 13-06054 SJO (PJWx)), and the Sonos Case (CV 13-06062 SJO
`(PJWx)).
`
`III.
`
`RULING
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion. The Court DISMISSES
`without prejudice all three of Plaintiff's cases: the Pioneer Case, CV 13-05980 SJO (PJWx); the
`Yamaha Case, CV 13-06054 SJO (PJWx); and the Sonos Case, CV 13-06062 SJO (PJWx). If
`Plaintiff files new complaints in the Central District of California and serves Defendants with these
`complaints by January 21, 2014, the Court shall maintain the schedule set in the November 12,
`2013 Scheduling Conference as allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a).
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Page 7 of 7
`
`SONOS 1007 - Page 7
`
`