You're viewing Docket Item 153 from the case Infuturia Global Ltd. v. Sequus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case4:08-cv-04871-SBA Document153 Filed06/01/09 Page1 of 3

Case 4:08-cv-04871-SBA Document 136 Filed 04/06/2009 Page 1 of 3


(415) 875-6600
(415) 875-6700
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER & HEDGES, LLP
David Eiseman (Bar No. 114758)
Melissa Baily (Bar No. 237649)
Billie Salinas (Bar No. 235193)
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Email:





JENNER & BLOCK LLP
Harry J. Roper (admitted pro hac vice)
Eric L. Lohrenz (admitted pro hac vice)
330 N. Wabash Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Email:



Attorneys for Defendant
Sequus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.



(312) 222-9350
(312) 527-0484
[email protected]
[email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

INFUTURIA GLOBAL LTD., a British
Virgin Islands corporation,


Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C-08-4871 SBA


[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
SEQUUS’ MOTION TO DISMISS


SEQUUS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a
Delaware corporation,


Defendant.



vs.






1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SEQUUS’
MOTION TO DISMISS






CASE NO. C-08-4871

XXXXXXXXXCase4:08-cv-04871-SBA Document153 Filed06/01/09 Page2 of 3

Case 4:08-cv-04871-SBA Document 136 Filed 04/06/2009 Page 2 of 3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS MATTER having been brought before the Court upon Defendant Sequus

Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (“Sequus”) Motion To Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(7) and Rule 12(b)(6)

and Motion To Strike Request for Attorney’s Fees, and the Court having considered all papers

filed on behalf of Sequus and Plaintiff Infuturia Global Ltd. (“Infuturia”), the oral argument of

counsel for the respective parties, and the pleadings in this matter, this Court hereby finds as

follows:

Infuturia’s Second Amended Complaint does not contain “enough facts to state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955,

1974 (2007). In its Second Amended Complaint, Infuturia contends that Sequus’ drug “Doxil” is

not at issue in this case—indeed, Infuturia’s allegations regarding Doxil, which were set out in a

prior complaint, have already been resolved in arbitration. Infuturia has not identified any other

Sequus product, compound, or drug that purportedly forms the basis of its claims for conversion

and tortious interference, despite this Court’s Order that it do so. Accordingly, Infuturia has not

only failed to state claims to which Sequus could respond or upon which relief could be granted,

but it appears that Infuturia cannot do so. E.g., Bay Indust., Inc. v. Tru-Arx Mfg., LLC, No. 06-C-

1010, 2006 WL 3469599, at *2 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 29, 2006); In re Verifone Litig., 784 F. Supp.

1471, 1486 (N.D. Cal. 1992).

Moreover, it is clear that non-party Yissum Research and Development Company of the

Hebrew University of Jerusalem (“Yissum”) is an indispensable party to any dispute that does

exist here. Infuturia alleges that its March 1990 license agreement with Yissum (“Infuturia

License”) is the source of certain contractual rights. Infuturia further alleges that Sequus

tortiously interfered with and converted those contractual rights by entering into a January 1995

license agreement with Yissum (the “Sequus License”). The determination of Yissum’s rights and

obligations under the Infuturia License and the Sequus License are thus integral to the resolution

of Infuturia’s dispute with Sequus. Accordingly, Yissum is a necessary party to this action

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a). E.g., Knowledgeplex, Inc. v. Placebase, Inc.,

No. C 08-4267 JF (RS), 2008 WL 5245484, at *4, *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2008); Corsi v. Eagle

Publ’g, Inc., No. 1:07-cv-02004-ESH, 2008 WL 239581 (D.D.C. Jan. 20, 2008).
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SEQUUS’
MOTION TO DISMISS


- 1 -

CASE NO. C-08-4871



XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXCase4:08-cv-04871-SBA Document153 Filed06/01/09 Page3 of 3

Case 4:08-cv-04871-SBA Document 136 Filed 04/06/2009 Page 3 of 3


Yissum cannot be joined as a party to this action, however, because of the binding

arbitration clause in the Infuturia License. Corsi, 2008 WL 239581, at *5. Accordingly, Yissum

is an indispensable party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b), and Infuturia’s

Second Amended Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(7).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Sequus’ Motion To Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(7) and

Rule 12(b)(6) is GRANTED. Infuturia’s Second Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice.





Dated: ___________________________






____________________________________
Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong
United States District Judge

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SEQUUS’
MOTION TO DISMISS


- 2 -

CASE NO. C-08-4871

6/1/09