LNV Corporation v. Subramaniam

Response Plaintiff's Response Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Notice of Related Cases.

D. Or.June 23, 2015

1- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF RELATED CASES LEGAL126633709.2 Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222 Erick J. Haynie, OSB No. 982482 EHaynie@perkinscoie.com Gabrielle D. Richards, OSB No. 114992 GRichards@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Telephone: 503.727.2000 Facsimile: 503.727.2222 Attorneys for Plaintiff LNV Corporation UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION LNV CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff, v. DENISE SUBRAMANIAM, Defendant. Case No. 3:14-cv-01836-MO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF RELATED CASES Plaintiff LNV Corporation (“LNV”) hereby responds to the “Notice of Related Cases” filed by defendant Denise Subramaniam (“Defendant”). For the reasons set forth below, LNV respectfully requests that the Court (1) strike Defendant’s “Notice of Related Cases” or, if treated as a motion, that it be denied and (2) deny Defendant’s motion to consolidate, to the extent that such a motion has been pleaded within Defendant’s “Notice of Related Cases.” // // Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 62 Filed 06/23/15 Page 1 of 4 2- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF RELATED CASES LEGAL126633709.2 Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222 DISCUSSION Defendant’s latest conspiracy-oriented pleading attempts to provide the Court with notice of several “directly related” cases from this and other jurisdictions and seeks consolidation of these “related cases” for the limited purpose of compelling LNV to produce original notes. Defendant cites a myriad of procedural rules and statutes in support of her pleading — chiefly “RCFC 42.1,” “18 U.S. Code § 3663A” and “Federal Rule 40.2(a)(1)” — but these authorities are inapplicable to this case. In the end, Defendant’s pleading is nothing more than an illogical recitation of empty allegations intended to promote a theory that has no basis in law or fact. A. Defendant Has Failed to Articulate a Procedural Basis for Her “Notice” Defendant purports to file her “Notice of Related Cases” pursuant to “Federal Rule 40.2(a)(1),” yet there is no such rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern this case. LNV assumes that Defendant is referring to Rule 40.2(a)(1) (related cases) of the Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which only govern procedure in that tribunal.1 Defendant thus has not articulated a procedural basis for her “Notice of Related Cases.” For this reason, the “Notice of Related Cases” should be stricken or, if treated as a motion, it should be denied. B. Defendant Has Failed to Articulate a Procedural Basis for “Consolidation” Similarly, Defendant seeks to consolidate the “related cases” pursuant to “RCFC 42.1.” Here again, there is no such rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims include a Rule 42.1 (motions to consolidate) but, as discussed above, those rules are inapplicable in this Court.2 Defendant also appears to seek consolidation and/or restitution pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 3663A, which deals with restitution to victims in criminal 1 RCFC 40.2 has no counterpart in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2 RCFC 42.1 has no counterpart in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 62 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 4 3- PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF RELATED CASES LEGAL126633709.2 Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222 cases. This case, however, is a civil action and 18 U.S. Code § 3663A is inapplicable. Because Defendant has not articulated a procedural basis for consolidation, her motion should be denied.3 IV. CONCLUSION LNV requests that the Court (1) strike Defendant’s “Notice of Related Cases” or, if treated as a motion, that it be denied and (2) deny Defendant’s motion to consolidate, to the extent that such a motion has been pleaded within Defendant’s “Notice of Related Cases.” DATED: June 23, 2015 PERKINS COIE LLP By:/s/ Gabrielle D. Richards Gabrielle D. Richards, OSB No. 114992 GRichards@perkinscoie.com 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Telephone: 503.727.2000 Facsimile: 503.727.2222 3 FRCP 42, which governs consolidations generally, applies to multiple actions before one court. However, the “related cases” of which Defendant purports to give notice are not actions pending before this Court and Defendant has not articulated, let alone established, any basis to consolidate the present action with the “related cases.” It is also worth noting that one of the “related cases,” Subramaniam v. Beal, No. 3:12-cv-1681-MO, is one where this Court has dismissed with prejudice all of Defendant’s claims as to all defendants. Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 62 Filed 06/23/15 Page 3 of 4 PAGE 1- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE LEGAL126633709.2 Perkins Coie LLP 1120 N.W. Couch Street, Tenth Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 Phone: 503.727.2000 Fax: 503.727.2222 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I served the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF RELATED CASES on: Denise Subramaniam 13865 SW Walker Rd. Beaverton, OR 97005 Defendant by depositing a copy in the U.S. Mail in a sealed postage-prepaid envelope and deposited with the United States Postal Service at Portland, Oregon on the date set forth below. DATED: June 23, 2015 /s/ Gabrielle D. Richards Gabrielle D. Richards, OSB No. 114992 GRichards@perkinscoie.com Attorneys for Plaintiff LNV Corporation Case 3:14-cv-01836-MO Document 62 Filed 06/23/15 Page 4 of 4