Breathe Technologies, Inc. v. New Aera, Inc.
- Edward Davila
- 5:19-cv-07691
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Breathe Technologies v. New Aera, Judge Davila denied as moot motions to compel arbitration, transfer, and dismiss.
Breathe Technologies, Inc.; defendants Inogen, Inc., Todd W. Allum, and Silverbow Development, LLC; and the other defendants named in the case caption.
What happened
Breathe Technologies, Inc. sued New Aera, Inc. and others. Before the court ruled on certain motions, Breathe filed an amended complaint replacing its original complaint.
The defendants’ motions targeted the original complaint, which was no longer operative after the amendment. The court therefore denied as moot the motion to compel arbitration and stay or transfer a claim, and Silverbow Development’s motion to dismiss.
Judge Edward J. Davila said the defendants could file new motions directed at the amended complaint if they wished to challenge it.
The detailed version
- Breathe Technologies, Inc. v. New Aera, Inc. · No. 5:19-cv-07691
- Edward Davila
- Apr. 1, 2020
Background
Breathe Technologies, Inc. filed the original complaint in this case on November 21, 2019. On March 10, 2020, Inogen, Inc. and Todd W. Allum moved to compel arbitration of Breathe’s Third through Seventh Claims for Relief. Inogen also sought a stay while arbitration proceeded or, alternatively, a transfer of Breathe’s First Claim for Relief. Silverbow Development, LLC joined the arbitration motion and separately moved to dismiss Breathe’s Second Claim for Relief.
On March 31, 2020, Breathe filed an amended complaint. The court explained that the amended complaint replaced the original complaint, which should be treated as no longer operative. Because both pending motions challenged the original complaint, the amendment made those motions moot, meaning the court no longer needed to decide them as directed to that complaint.
Ruling
The court denied as moot the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay or alternatively transfer, and denied as moot Silverbow’s motion to dismiss. The court did not decide whether arbitration, a transfer, or dismissal was warranted under the amended complaint. It stated that defendants seeking those forms of relief from the amended complaint should file new motions based on that complaint.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.