Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Genentech moved to voluntarily dismiss its action against Defendant Eli Lilly with prejudice, and Defendant responded by requesting to be named the prevailing party. The court granted the motion, dismissed the action with prejudice, and declared Defendant the prevailing party.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss With Prejudice“the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss (ECF No. 73) and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action in its entirety.” | agree with court The order recites that the motion was filed and responded to, but does not explicitly state the legal standard for voluntary dismissal (e.g., Rule 41(a)(1) vs. (a)(2)) or the specific grounds for granting it. However, the subsequent citation to *Raniere* regarding Rule 41(a)(2) implies the dismissal was treated as a consented-to or court-ordered dismissal with prejudice, which is a standard procedural outcome when a plaintiff moves to dismiss with prejudice and the defendant does not oppose the dismissal itself (only the prevailing party status). |
Declaring Defendant the Prevailing Party“the Court DECLARES Defendant to be the prevailing party in this action.” | agree with court The court relies on *Raniere v. Microsoft Corp.* to establish that a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) confers prevailing party status on the defendant. This is a correct application of the law in the Federal Circuit (which has jurisdiction over patent cases, likely the subject here given the parties) and generally accepted in other circuits for fee-shifting purposes. The plaintiff did not oppose this specific request. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the motion, notes the parties' positions, grants the dismissal, and applies the correct legal standard for determining prevailing party status in the context of a dismissal with prejudice. The reliance on *Raniere* is appropriate for a patent case in the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction (or persuasive authority in the 9th Circuit if not a patent case, though *Raniere* is Fed Cir). The order is concise and directly addresses the pending motions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GENENTECH, INC., a Delaware Case No.: 18-CV-1518 JLS (JLB) corporation, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO VOLUNTARILY v. DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE 14 ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, an Indiana 15 (ECF No. 73) corporation, 16 Defendant. 17 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Genentech, Inc.’s Motion to Voluntarily 19 Dismiss With Prejudice (ECF No. 73). Defendant Eli Lilly and Company filed a response 20 requesting the Court either name Defendant the prevailing party or, in the alternative, enter 21 final judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54, 56, and 58. ECF No. 75. 22 Plaintiff filed a reply and noted that it does not oppose the request to name Defendant the 23 prevailing party, but that it does oppose Defendant’s request to enter judgment. ECF No. 24 76. 25 After reviewing the Motion and the Parties responses, the Court GRANTS 26 Plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss (ECF No. 73) and DISMISSES WITH 27 PREJUDICE this action in its entirety. Because the Court dismisses the case with 28 prejudice, the Court DECLARES Defendant to be the prevailing party in this action. See 1 || Raniere v. Microsoft Corp., 887 F.3d 1298, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that a voluntary 2 dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) is sufficient to establish prevailing party 3 || status on a defendant). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: March 16, 2020 . tt 6 pee Janis L. Sammartino 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28