iOttie Inc. v. HSM Co. Ltd
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:25-cv-02642
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In iOttie v. HSM, Judge Abrams dismissed Worldshoppe, denied a moot stay request, and required a patent-adjusted case plan.
Worldshoppe Co. Ltd was dismissed from the case. The remaining parties must submit a case-management plan and scheduling order that accounts for the defendants’ patent counterclaims.
What happened
In iOttie Inc. v. HSM Co. Ltd, the court addressed the effect of its earlier decision denying the plaintiffs’ request to send the case back to state court. The earlier decision found no reasonable possibility that Worldshoppe Co. Ltd could state a claim against any defendant.
Because of that finding, the court dismissed Worldshoppe Co. Ltd from the case. The plaintiffs’ request to pause their deadline for responding to the defendants’ answer and counterclaims was denied as moot because it had sought a pause while the request to send the case back was pending.
The parties must submit a proposed case-management plan and scheduling order adjusted for the defendants’ patent counterclaims and related patent-rule requirements. Judge Ronnie Abrams also directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket entry 27.
The detailed version
- iOttie Inc. v. HSM Co. Ltd · No. 1:25-cv-02642
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 11, 2025
Background
On July 9, 2025, the Court issued an opinion denying the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, which sought to have the case returned to state court. The stated reason was that there was no reasonable possibility that Worldshoppe Co. Ltd could state a claim against any defendant. The current order applies that earlier finding to Worldshoppe’s status in the case.
Rulings
The Court dismissed Worldshoppe Co. Ltd from the case. The order cites a prior related proceeding as support for dismissing a party after denying a remand motion that challenged alleged fraudulent joinder. Fraudulent joinder is an argument that a party was added without a reasonable possibility of a valid claim against that party.
The plaintiffs’ motion to stay, or pause, their deadline for responding to the defendants’ answer and counterclaims was denied as moot. The motion had requested a stay pending resolution of the remand motion, which the Court had already resolved. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 27.
Next Steps
The parties must submit a proposed case-management plan and scheduling order. They must adjust the proposal to account for the defendants’ patent counterclaims and the additional scheduling issues raised by the Local Patent Rules. The order does not decide the merits of those patent counterclaims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.