Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 2, 2022

Glass Egg Digital Media v. Gameloft, Inc.

Judge
Maxine Chesney
Docket
3:17-cv-04165
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Glass Egg Digital Media v. Gameloft, Judge Chesney denied Gameloft, Inc.’s joinder because it was filed after the company answered.

Who this affects

Gameloft, Inc.’s attempt to join Gameloft SE’s motion to dismiss was denied; the order concerned the timing of that joinder.

What happened

In Glass Egg Digital Media v. Gameloft, Inc., Gameloft, Inc. tried to join Gameloft SE’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint. The plaintiff opposed the request.

The court explained that a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) must be filed before the defendant answers. Gameloft, Inc. had answered the fourth amended complaint in 2018, before filing its notice of joinder in 2022.

The court ruled that Gameloft, Inc.’s joinder was untimely and denied it. Judge Maxine Chesney issued the order on February 2, 2022.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Glass Egg Digital Media v. Gameloft, Inc. · No. 3:17-cv-04165
Judge
Maxine Chesney
Date
Feb. 2, 2022

Background

Gameloft, Inc. filed a notice stating that it joined Gameloft SE’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) to dismiss Glass Egg Digital Media’s fourth amended complaint. The notice was filed on January 26, 2022, and Glass Egg Digital Media opposed it.

Reasoning

Rule 12(b) requires a motion to dismiss to be filed before the defendant files an answer when an answer is required. Gameloft, Inc. had answered the fourth amended complaint on September 17, 2018. Because that answer came before Gameloft, Inc.’s notice of joinder, the court found that the attempted joinder was untimely.

Ruling

The court denied Gameloft, Inc.’s joinder. The order did not decide the underlying merits of the motion to dismiss.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.