HotSpot Therapeutics, Inc. v. Nurix Therapeutics, Inc.
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:22-cv-04109
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In HotSpot Therapeutics v. Nurix Therapeutics, Judge Hixson ordered Nurix to explain its failure to meet filing requirements before possible dismissal.
Nurix Therapeutics, Inc., whose trade-secret counterclaims were placed at risk of dismissal unless it responded to the court’s order; HotSpot Therapeutics, Inc., which may file a reply if Nurix files an opposition.
What happened
HotSpot Therapeutics, Inc. asked the court for partial summary judgment, arguing that Nurix Therapeutics, Inc.’s trade-secret claims were filed too late under the applicable three-year deadline. The opinion does not decide that request.
Nurix did not file an opposition that complied with the court’s local rule. The court canceled the scheduled hearing and ordered Nurix to explain why its claims should not be dismissed for failing to pursue them and for missing court deadlines. Nurix was required to file a declaration and either a compliant opposition or a statement that it did not oppose the motion by February 29, 2024.
Judge Thomas S. Hixson issued the order to show cause. The court warned that failing to respond would be treated as an admission that Nurix did not intend to pursue its claims and that the claims would likely be dismissed. The order did not yet dismiss the claims or rule on HotSpot’s partial-summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- HotSpot Therapeutics, Inc. v. Nurix Therapeutics, Inc. · No. 3:22-cv-04109
- Thomas Hixson
- Feb. 21, 2024
Background
HotSpot Therapeutics, Inc., identified as the plaintiff and counterclaim defendant, moved for partial summary judgment. It argued that Nurix Therapeutics, Inc.’s trade-secret misappropriation claims were barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations. The order does not resolve whether those claims were timely.
Court’s Action
The court stated that Nurix had not filed an opposition complying with Civil Local Rule 7. Because of that failure, the court vacated the hearing scheduled for March 14, 2024, and ordered Nurix to show cause—meaning to explain—why its claims should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court deadlines.
Nurix was ordered to file a declaration by February 29, 2024, and at the same time file either an opposition complying with Civil Local Rule 7-3(a) or a statement of nonopposition complying with Local Rule 7-3(b). If Nurix filed an opposition, HotSpot could file a reply by March 8, 2024.
Disposition
Judge Thomas S. Hixson did not dismiss Nurix’s claims in this order and did not grant or deny HotSpot’s partial-summary-judgment motion. The court warned that failure to file a written response would be treated as an admission that Nurix did not intend to prosecute its claims, and that the claims would likely be dismissed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.