Defendants also appear to interpret Rule 20 to require “any right to relief is asserted against [all defendants] . . . with respect to . . . the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.” They provide no support for this interpretation of Rule 20, which should be rejected for the same reasons articulated with respect to the AIA. Case 6:13-cv-00941-RWS Document 99 Filed 10/10/13 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 816 12 resells Windows-based and Mac OS X based products,”

Defendants also argue that the amendments to Rule 20 apply in this case because Medsquire filed its Second Amended Complaint after the effective date for the Rule 20 amendments. But the changes to Rule 20 only apply to actions “commenced” after September 16, 2011, and Medsquire filed its complaint before then. Defendants assert that Medsquire actually “commenced” this action after September 16 because this Court’s General Order 10-07 defines amended complaints as “initiating documents.”

Deskovic, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 159-60 (citations omitted); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. “Even if the threshold requirements of Rule 20(a)(2) are met, courts may consider ‘(1) whether severance would serve judicial economy; (2) whether prejudice to the parties would be caused by severance; and (3) whether the claims involve different witnesses and evidence.’” Deskovic, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 171 (quoting Kehr, 596 F. Supp. 2d at 826) (other citation omitted). Here, these additional factors also support severance.

Since the joinder provision of the AIA does not apply, FED. R. CIV. P. 20 is used to determine whether joinder is permissive. Under Rule 20, the Moving Defendants have been properly joined to this action since each of the named defendants infringe the „474 patent. Therefore, the Court should deny Defendants‟ motion to dismiss for improper joinder. Case 2:11-cv-00405-DF-CMC Document 101 Filed 02/06/12 Page 7 of 9

Coughlin v. Rogers (9th Cir. 1997) 130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (“Rule 20 is designed to promote judicial economy, and reduce inconvenience, delay, and added expense.”).

As GiiNii’s motion concedes, courts in this district have consistently held that the first prong of joinder is met “if there is some connection or logical relationship between the various transactions or occurrences,” meaning a “nucleus of operative facts or law.” Microunity Sys. Case 6:11-cv-00474-LED Document 119 Filed 04/19/12 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 565 7 Eng’g v. Acer Inc., No. 2:10-cv-185, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXI 112564, at **16-17, 18 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2011) (finding “logical relationship” where all accused products use a processor based on a common third-party architecture and instruction set). Thus, courts in this district have found joinder proper where “[d]efendants’ allegedly infringing products are not dramatically different.” Oasis Research, LLC v. Adrive, LLC, No. 4:10-cv-435, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80623, at *9 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2011) (finding first prong of Rule 20 analysis satisfied where all defendants operate an “online backup/storage” service); MyMail, 223 F.R.D. at 456-57 (finding “logical relationship” where “the record before the Court does not show that the products or methods at issue are so different that determining infringement in one case is less proper or efficient than determining infringement in multiple cases”). Joinder is also proper where there is infringement of a common patent because “adjudicating infringement will require construing the claims and evaluating the patent’s innovation over the prior art.”

(“Whether a defendant unlawfully discriminated against one plaintiff with respect to promotion or job assignment in a given department is not common with the question whether defendant unlawfully discriminated against another plaintiff in a separate department.”); Johnson v. Indopco, Inc., 846 F. Supp. 670, 676 (N.D. Ill. 1994) (denying joinder where current employee claimed race discrimination in denial of promotion, former employee claimed that sexual harassment and race motivated denial of promotion, and claims arose at different times); Weir v. Litton Bionetics, Inc., 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24884, at *15-18 (D. Md. May 29, 1986); (severing claims of two age discrimination plaintiffs who were terminated at different times and worked in two divisions that operated independently of one another); Smith, 50 F.R.D. at 521-22 (court concluded that plaintiffs were misjoined in one action under Rule 20(a), noting that plaintiffs “have attempted to join in one action what are in reality four separate lawsuits arising out of four separate series of transactions or occurrences involving four disparate sets of facts”). Case3:12-cv-02730-MMC Document123 Filed10/03/14 Page21 of 36 1

Facsimile: 512.623.7729 jeff@edward-law.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Case3:13-cv-00453-JST Document268 Filed03/05/13 Page11 of 12 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 12 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO TWITTER’S RENEWED MOTION TO SEVER CASE NO. 3:13-CV-00453-JST UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION MARC OPPERMAN, et al., for themselves and all others similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. PATH, INC. et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:13-cv-00453-JST [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT TWITTER, INC.’S RENEWED MOTION TO SEVER Hon. Jon S. Tigar The Court, having considered Defendant Twitter, Inc.’s (“Twitter’s) Renewed Motion to Sever [#236] and the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the oral arguments of counsel, and the record as a whole, determines as follows: The parties are properly joined in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20, 21.

Only the former, several liability, satisfies Rule 20: The joinder of the malpractice claim against Dr. Housman with the other general negligence and product liability claims was inappropriate because the claims do not both involve common questions of law or fact and assert joint, several, or alternative liability ‘arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(b). Any liability that may be found against either Guidant/EVT or Dr. Case 1:12-cv-01096-REB-BNB Document 10 Filed 05/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 17 11 Housman would not be a basis for liability as to the other.

4 which relief can be granted. Alternatively, Alfresco requests that the Court dismiss, or in the alternative, sever, the claims against it pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and 21. Respectfully submitted.