In sum, Lead Plaintiffs respectfully submit that Atkin’s arguments are without merit. The complaint was properly amended pursuant to Rule 15(a) and this Court’s orders and properly served on Atkin. Atkin does not have standing to assert that Lead Plaintiffs failed to properly move to add him as a party pursuant to Rule 21, and even if he did, the appropriate remedy, if this Court believed one to be necessary, would be to order the case against him severed, not dismissed. Similarly, even if Atkin was not timely served under Rule 4(m), this Court, at least, may extend the time to service Atkin.

In sum, Lead Plaintiffs believe this Court’s Order was clear and unambiguous – “to properly serve the consolidated amended class action complaint upon William W. Atkin.” Order at 7 (emphasis added). The Court did not instruct Lead Plaintiffs to serve either the Bird or Bernard complaint, nor did it purport to “join” Atkin as a new party to this action under Rule 21. Lead Plaintiffs complied with this Court’s Order by personally serving Atkin. Importantly, this Court now has denied the motions to dismiss of each of the other ANR officers and directors that are defendants in this action.

As set forth above, any discovery taken on the merits of the Estate Claims would not need to be repeated for the Class Claims. Case 3:12-cv-04641-N-BG Document 163 Filed 12/10/15 Page 8 of 10 PageID 2366 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiffs’ Motion for Severance of Estate Claims Page 9 83649v.4 IV. CONCLUSION & PRAYER For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs request the entry of an order severing the Estate Claims from the Class Claims under Rule 21 and establishing a separate case number and docket for the Estate Claims. Upon severance of the Estate Claims, Plaintiffs also request that the Court (i) order the parties to conduct a Rule 26 conference, (ii) enter a scheduling order with respect to the Estate Claims governing all discovery and pretrial deadlines, and (iii) schedule a trial date on the Estate Claims in the severed action.

acsimile: 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.

Therefore, Rule 21 is inapplicable to this case to separate the claimants when the EEOC is the plaintiff pursuing a single claim against Defendants. C. EVEN IF FED. R. CIV. 21 IS APPLIED, THE CLAIMANTS’ RIGHT TO RELIEF RELY ON THE SAME SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS AND OCCURENCES; AND SHARE IN COMMON MANY OF THE SAME ISSUES OF LAW OR FACT While Rule 21 is applicable to sever claimants in an EEOC case, applying the rule does not warrant severance. Fed. R. Civ. P. is silent as to the actual grounds for misjoinder.

II. Plaintiffs Have Failed To Meet Their Burden To Show Severance Is Justified Under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 21. Each of the factors under Rule 21 weighs against severing the Receiver/OSIC claims into a separate case.

Additionally, because “intent to deceive” is a required element of an action under 35 U.S.C. § 292, there is a substantial risk that any alleged intent to deceive by one defendant could be improperly attributed to a codefendant. In these circumstances, severance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 is appropriate. B. TRANSFER OF THIS CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IS PROPER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Additionally, because “intent to deceive” is a required element of an action under 35 U.S.C. § 292, there is a substantial risk that any alleged intent to deceive by one defendant could be improperly attributed to a codefendant. In these circumstances, severance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 is mandated. B. TRANSFER OF THIS CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA IS PROPER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

2. Severance will not substantially inconvenience Petitioner To determine whether severance is appropriate under Fed R. Civ. P. 21, courts also consider “‘the convenience of the parties, avoiding prejudice, promoting expedition and economy, and the separability of law and logic.’” Tab Exp.

These defendants are different companies that have applied the terms of their different plans to come to the same conclusions. This court should find that the requirements for joinder have not been met under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 and, as in Sanctuary, sever this action into separate lawsuits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. b. A More Definite Statement is Necessary Further, because IDD’s Amended Complaint fails to set forth enough factual information to outline the elements of its claims or permit BCBS Michigan to respond, the Court should order IDD to provide a more definite statement of its Amended Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). Mitchell v. E-Z Way Towers, Inc., 269 F.2d 126, 130 (5th Cir. 1959) (Under 12(e) the Court must determine whether the complaint is such that “a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.”) This statement should separate by count each individual claim, setting forth the patient (identified by initials); the specific insurance plan under which IDD is proceeding and whether it is an ERISA-governed plan or not; the dates of treatment at IDD's facility; the amount of alleged incurred charges; the amount of charges allegedly remaining outstanding; and the amount of benefits sought on behalf of that patient. This m