From pacer #5--tks Wolf
On September 27, 2010, Plaintiff Charles H. Moore (“Plaintiff Moore”) filed this action
in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Plaintiff Moore, an inventor, seeks damages and injunctive relief against Defendants, who are alleged to have breached or abused their right and authority to license patents of Plaintiff Moore referred to as the Moore Microprocessor Patent Portfolio (the “MMP Portfolio”).
In state court, to preserve the status quo pending resolution of Plaintiff Moore’s causes of action, Plaintiff Moore calendared hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction that would preserve the status quo, and avoid further diversion of licensing proceeds, until the matter could be resolved through settlement or adjudication.
With the case assigned to Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg, hearing on Plaintiff Moore’s motion for injunction was set for Tuesday, November 2, 2010, at 9:00 a.m.
October 20, 2010, was the date on which Defendants’ state court opposition to Plaintiff Moore’s motion for injunction was due.
On that date, instead of filing state court opposition to Plaintiff Moore’s duly noticed motion for injunction, Defendants removed this case to federal court.
Defendants’ removal of this case deprived Judge Kleinberg of the power and authority to preserve the status quo, and prevent further mis-appropriation of MMP Portfolio licensing revenues, while apparently setting the stage for further action here.
Defendants’ removal of this matter to this Court would suggest that they desire decision not by a state court judge but by an Article III, life-tenured federal judge in this Court.
Not so.
Defendants no sooner removed this matter to this Court than they calendared a motion to stay proceedings here in favor of arbitration.
Thus Defendants are shown to be in search of a judge not to decide this case on its merits, but to send it arbitration.
Defendants have also moved to dismiss the case.
Hearing on both motions has been continued to February 2011.
Plaintiff Moore, believing that this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction in this matter, respectfully requests that a decision on remand precede any consideration of Defendants’ motions to dismiss or to stay in favor of arbitration.
