Goddard v. Slickdeals
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:25-cv-06187
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Goddard v. Slickdeals, Judge Corley denied Slickdeals’s motion to dismiss as moot and Goddard’s emergency motion for summary judgment.
Thomas Joseph Goddard and Slickdeals, LLC are directly affected by the rulings on the two motions. The order also recounts an earlier ruling involving Apple Inc.
What happened
In Thomas Joseph Goddard v. Slickdeals, LLC, and Apple Inc., an earlier October 21 order granted Apple’s motion to dismiss, denied Goddard’s request to file a second amended complaint, and dismissed his claims against Slickdeals because they were improperly joined, while allowing him to file those claims separately.
Slickdeals later moved to dismiss under a rule concerning parallel court proceedings or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim. The court denied that motion as moot because of the October 21 order. Goddard then sought emergency summary judgment, but the court denied that motion because he did not have an operative complaint on which to seek judgment.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley issued the October 22, 2025 order, which disposed of both motions without deciding the merits of Goddard’s claims against Slickdeals.
The detailed version
- Goddard v. Slickdeals · No. 3:25-cv-06187
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Oct. 22, 2025
Background
Goddard sued Slickdeals, LLC, and Apple Inc. The court stated that, in an October 21, 2025 order, it granted Apple’s motion to dismiss and denied Goddard’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) and 21, the court also dismissed Goddard’s claims against Slickdeals as improperly joined, without prejudice to Goddard filing those claims in a separate complaint.
Slickdeals’s Motion to Dismiss
After the October 21 order, Slickdeals moved to dismiss Goddard’s claims under Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, a doctrine concerning parallel proceedings, or alternatively for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court denied Slickdeals’s motion to dismiss as moot because of the October 21 order. “Moot” means that the court considered the motion no longer capable of affecting the matter before it.
Goddard’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Goddard filed an emergency motion for summary judgment on October 22, 2025. Summary judgment is a decision based on the undisputed facts and applicable law without a trial. The court denied the motion because Goddard did not have an operative complaint—that is, a currently active pleading—on which to seek judgment.
Disposition
Judge Jacquelyn Corley denied Slickdeals’s motion to dismiss as moot and denied Goddard’s emergency motion for summary judgment. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 35 and 38. The opinion does not decide the merits of Goddard’s claims against Slickdeals in this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.