Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46-11 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 569
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46-11 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 569
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 9
`EXHIBIT 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46-11 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 569
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 9
`EXHIBIT 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46-11 Filed 12/29/17 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 570
`mammmwm Wt‘fiflfl Ffiilfifllkfimdfi
`lecfif‘lsFPafiflfiMfii 37613
`Case 2:17-cv-00561-JRG Document 30-7 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 507
`
`Exhibit F
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46-11 Filed 12/29/17 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 571
`Case 2:17-cv-00561-JRG Document 30-7 Filed 10/10/17 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 508
`
`·1· · · · · · · · ·IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`·2· · · · · · · · · FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`·3· · · · · · · · · · · · · MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`·4· ·AMERICAN GNC CORPORATION· · )(
`
`·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)(· CIVIL DOCKET NO.
`
`·6· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)(· 2:17-CV-0107-RWS-RSP
`
`·7· ·vs.· · · · · · · · · · · · ·)(· MARSHALL, TEXAS
`
`·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)(
`
`·9· ·ZTE CORPORATION, ET AL· · · )(
`
`10· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·)(· SEPTEMBER 1, 2017
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·MOTIONS HEARING
`
`14· · · · · · · · · BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROY S. PAYNE
`
`15· · · · · · · · · ·UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`
`16
`
`17· ·APPEARANCES:
`
`18· ·FOR THE PLAINTIFF:· (See sign-in sheets docketed in
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · minutes of this hearing.)
`19
`
`20· ·FOR THE DEFENDANT:· (See sign-in sheets docketed in
`· · · · · · · · · · · · · minutes of this hearing.)
`21
`
`22
`
`23· ·COURT REPORTER:· Ms. Tammy L. Goolsby, CSR
`
`24· ·Proceedings taken by Machine Stenotype; transcript was produced
`· · ·by a Computer
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46-11 Filed 12/29/17 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 572
`Case 2:17-cv-00561-JRG Document 30-7 Filed 10/10/17 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 509
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X
`
`·2
`
`·3· ·SEPTEMBER 1, 2017:
`
`·4· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE
`
`·5· ·Appearances· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 1
`
`·6· ·Hearing· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 3
`
`·7· ·Court Reporter's Certificate· · · · · · · · · 35
`
`·8
`
`·9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46-11 Filed 12/29/17 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 573
`Case 2:17-cv-00561-JRG Document 30-7 Filed 10/10/17 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 510
`
`·1· · · · · · · · · · · · P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`·2· · · · · · ·COURT SECURITY OFFICER:· All rise.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Good morning.· Please be seated.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·For the record, we're here for the motion hearing in
`
`·5· ·American GNC Corporation versus ZTE Corporation, et al.· Would
`
`·6· ·counsel state their appearances for the record?
`
`·7· · · · · · ·MS. RICHARDS:· Good morning, Your Honor.· Alison
`
`·8· ·Richards and Andrea Fair for Plaintiff American GNC.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· All right.· Thank you, Ms. Richards.
`
`10· · · · · · ·Good morning, Ms. Bennett.
`
`11· · · · · · ·MS. BENNETT:· Good morning.· Natalie Bennett and
`
`12· ·Charles McMahon on behalf of the Defendants ZTE USA, Inc., and
`
`13· ·ZTE Texas, Inc.
`
`14· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· All right.· Thank you, Ms. Bennett.
`
`15· ·We're here on Defendants' motion, so I'll turn it over first to
`
`16· ·counsel for Defendant.
`
`17· · · · · · ·MS. BENNETT:· Thank you, and may it please the Court.
`
`18· · · · · · ·We are here on two motions today, a motion to
`
`19· ·transfer to the Northern District of Texas and a motion to
`
`20· ·dismiss for improper venue.
`
`21· · · · · · ·We focused our presentation today on the motion to
`
`22· ·transfer under 28 USC 1404A because if that motion is granted,
`
`23· ·the motion to dismiss will be withdrawn.· Conversely, if the
`
`24· ·motion to dismiss is denied, the Court still needs to rule on
`
`25· ·the transfer motion.
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46-11 Filed 12/29/17 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 574
`Case 2:17-cv-00561-JRG Document 30-7 Filed 10/10/17 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 511
`
`·1· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Go ahead and address the other motion as
`
`·2· ·well.
`
`·3· · · · · · ·MS. BENNETT:· Okay.· Great.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·So the motion to dismiss for improper venue was filed
`
`·5· ·by ZTE USA back in April in lieu of answering the complaint.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·ZTE took essentially the same approach and made the
`
`·7· ·same arguments that the Supreme Court ultimately adopted when
`
`·8· ·TC Heartland was later decided, in particular that a Defendant
`
`·9· ·can only reside in the state of incorporation, and so after --
`
`10· ·there's no question that ZTE properly preserved the issue, that
`
`11· ·it was timely.· We have no waiver issues in this case.
`
`12· · · · · · ·ZTE USA is incorporated in New Jersey.· They do not
`
`13· ·reside in Texas, and they do not have a regular and established
`
`14· ·place of business in the Eastern District of Texas, and,
`
`15· ·therefore, they should be dismissed for venue being improper.
`
`16· · · · · · ·During that briefing, AGNC dropped a footnote and
`
`17· ·said if the Federal Circuit comes out the way ZTE is arguing,
`
`18· ·this case should be transferred to the Northern District of
`
`19· ·Texas, and that's what we are requesting be done.
`
`20· · · · · · ·So there is some briefing that has come in recently.
`
`21· ·It's not part of the record.· It is a pending motion for leave
`
`22· ·to supplement the record.· I can address the facts in that
`
`23· ·briefing if the Court wants, but at this point, that motion is
`
`24· ·pending, and none of that is really part of the record.
`
`25· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I would like you to address the
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46-11 Filed 12/29/17 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 575
`Case 2:17-cv-00561-JRG Document 30-7 Filed 10/10/17 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 512
`
`·1· ·information, I guess I'll say, that Plaintiff has presented
`
`·2· ·about ZTE having a regular and established place of business
`
`·3· ·through that call center in Plano.
`
`·4· · · · · · ·MS. BENNETT:· Sure.· So ZTE does not own, operate,
`
`·5· ·that call center.· It works with a third party called First
`
`·6· ·Contact who has a subsidiary -- or it's -- First Contact is a
`
`·7· ·subsidiary of a company called iQor, so just to make it easier,
`
`·8· ·I'm going to refer to that party as iQor.
`
`·9· · · · · · ·There's a call center where there are iQor
`
`10· ·representatives and employees that provide customer service
`
`11· ·assistance to ZTE and other companies.· This is not a ZTE only
`
`12· ·facility.· IQor is in the business of providing this customer
`
`13· ·service assistance to other customers.
`
`14· · · · · · ·There are no products that are sold out of this Plano
`
`15· ·call center.· It is people calling in and asking for
`
`16· ·assistance.· To the extent that the representatives, again
`
`17· ·employed by iQor, are giving advice on how to be operating the
`
`18· ·ZTE phones, the manuals and customer datas that would be there
`
`19· ·are duplicative of anything that ZTE would have in its
`
`20· ·Richardson headquarters, so --
`
`21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Ms. Bennett, do you dispute that there
`
`22· ·are ZTE documents that refer to that call center as being
`
`23· ·established by ZTE?
`
`24· · · · · · ·MS. BENNETT:· There are documents to assist the
`
`25· ·representatives speak to ZTE customers.· All of those documents
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46-11 Filed 12/29/17 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 576
`Case 2:17-cv-00561-JRG Document 30-7 Filed 10/10/17 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 513
`
`·1· ·are duplicative of what would be in Richardson, and there's no
`
`·2· ·indication that they're sources of proof for the allegations in
`
`·3· ·this case, and there's no suggestion that anything that's
`
`·4· ·happening in the Plano call center would bear upon the issues
`
`·5· ·that that would be raised at trial.
`
`·6· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I understand that, and that may well be
`
`·7· ·important for the transfer analysis.
`
`·8· · · · · · ·But with respect to the venue analysis, the
`
`·9· ·Plaintiffs represent in their briefs that ZTE documents refer
`
`10· ·to that as a call center established by ZTE with ZTE
`
`11· ·representatives at it.· Do you dispute that ZTE documents make
`
`12· ·that representation?
`
`13· · · · · · ·MS. BENNETT:· I don't dispute that that PowerPoint
`
`14· ·says that ZTE established the call center.· You know, it's
`
`15· ·established in partnership with the third party.· There's ZTE
`
`16· ·representatives that are -- that do come, not every day, but do
`
`17· ·make appearances and would work with the third party
`
`18· ·representatives.
`
`19· · · · · · ·There would be documents owned by ZTE in this
`
`20· ·facility, but, again, they would be the same documents that
`
`21· ·would also be in the Richardson headquarters.
`
`22· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· All right.· I'm just curious about that.
`
`23· · · · · · ·Do you have case law since Heartland that addresses
`
`24· ·venue in a multi-district state of incorporation?· I know
`
`25· ·that's the ZTE Texas issue.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
