Edmonds v. D2IQ Inc.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:23-cv-02741
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Edmonds v. D2IQ Inc., Judge Chhabria granted Nutanix and Knaup summary judgment, leaving D2IQ as the sole remaining defendant.
Edmonds’s claims against Nutanix and Knaup were resolved in their favor through summary judgment; D2IQ remained as the sole defendant, subject to further proceedings about whether it could be sued.
What happened
In Edmonds v. D2IQ Inc., the court considered a summary-judgment motion filed by Nutanix and Knaup.
The court found that Edmonds presented no evidence that Nutanix employed him. It also found that his evidence concerning Knaup—Knaup’s awareness of Edmonds’s complaint while serving as D2IQ’s CEO—did not establish that Knaup was Edmonds’s employer.
Judge Chhabria granted Nutanix and Knaup’s motion for summary judgment. D2IQ remained as the sole defendant, but the court said it was unclear whether D2IQ could still be sued and ordered Edmonds to file a status report before a July 11, 2025 case-management conference.
The detailed version
- Edmonds v. D2IQ Inc. · No. 3:23-cv-02741
- Vince Chhabria
- June 20, 2025
Background
Mark Edmonds sued D2IQ Inc. and others. Nutanix and Knaup moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in their favor without a trial because Edmonds lacked evidence supporting his claims against them.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that Edmonds produced no evidence that Nutanix ever employed him, and Edmonds did not address that issue in his opposition brief. The court also held that Edmonds’s only evidence of an employment relationship with Knaup was that Knaup knew about Edmonds’s complaint while serving as D2IQ’s CEO. The court found that this was insufficient to establish that Knaup was Edmonds’s employer. Because Knaup was not shown to be Edmonds’s employer, the court concluded that Knaup could not be individually liable.
Ruling and Next Steps
The court granted Nutanix and Knaup’s motion for summary judgment. D2IQ was the sole remaining defendant. The court said it was unclear whether D2IQ was an entity that could be sued at that point. It scheduled a video case-management conference for July 11, 2025, and ordered Edmonds to file a status report by July 7 explaining whether he intended to proceed against D2IQ and, if so, how doing so would be feasible given D2IQ’s current status.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.