Motive Technologies Inc

General

Total Cases14

Active Cases3

Patents6

CourtsN.D. California D. Delaware W.D. Texas

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

L1

B

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
09/18/24	Samsara Inc v. Motive Technologies Inc 3:24-CV-06049 ( N.D. CA )	ORDER. This case was recently transferred to this Court from the District of Delaware. At the time of transfer, an "emergency motion" filed by plaintiff Samsara to enjoin a scheduled arbitration on formation and enforceability grounds had been pending in the transferor court for two months. See Dkt. No. 48. After the transfer, Samsara filed another motion for expedited relief in this Court asking to resolve the injunction request on extremely short notice. Dkt. No. 76.Defendant Motive Technologies stated in a brief filed in Delaware that the arbitration clause in issue delegated "disputes over the formation, existence, validity, interpretation or scope" to an arbitrator. See Dkt. No. 53 at 3. Samsara does not disagree that the delegation clause is as Motive Technologies says, or that Motive agreed to Samsara's terms of service to obtain access to Samsara's products. Parties are perfectly free to delegate formation and enforcement questions to an arbitrator. See Harry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63, 65 (2019); First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943 (1995). That is what happened here, and Samsara's contention that the agreement should be unenforceable in light of Motive's conduct is exactly the type of question the parties agreed to delegate to the arbitrator. Samsara's mention of Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 144 S. Ct. 1186 (2024), see Dkt. No. 48 at 3, is of no moment. This case does not involve overlapping and conflicting agreements about who will decide arbitrability, as was the situation in Coinbase. See 144 S. Ct. at 1193-94. Consequently, the Court declines to intervene in the scheduled arbitration. If a fully developed record indicates that the arbitrator acted outside the scope of his contractually delegated authority, Samsara may pursue a remedy, as circumstances warrant. See Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 569 (2013). Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/18/2024. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2024) (Entered: 09/18/2024) ORDER. This case was recently transferred to this Court from the District of Delaware. At the time of transfer, an "emergency motion" filed by plaintiff Samsara to enjoin a scheduled arbitration on formation and enforceability grounds had been pending in the transferor court for two months. See Dkt. No. 48. After the transfer, Samsara filed another motion for expedited relief in this Court asking to resolve the injunction request on extremely short notice. Dkt. No. 76.Defendant Motive Technologies stated in a brief filed in Delaware that the arbitration clause in issue delegated "disputes over the formation, existence, validity, interpretation or scope" to an arbitrator. See Dkt. No. 53 at 3. Samsara does not disagree that the delegation clause is as Motive Technologies says, or that Motive agreed to Samsara's terms of service to obtain access to Samsara's products. Parties are perfectly free to delegate formation and enforcement questions to an arbitrator. See Harry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. 63, 65 (2019); First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943 (1995). That is what happened here, and Samsara's contention that the agreement should be unenforceable in light of Motive's conduct is exactly the type of question the parties agreed to delegate to the arbitrator. Samsara's mention of Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, 144 S. Ct. 1186 (2024), see Dkt. No. 48 at 3, is of no moment. This case does not involve overlapping and conflicting agreements about who will decide arbitrability, as was the situation in Coinbase. See 144 S. Ct. at 1193-94. Consequently, the Court declines to intervene in the scheduled arbitration. If a fully developed record indicates that the arbitrator acted outside the scope of his contractually delegated authority, Samsara may pursue a remedy, as circumstances warrant. See Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 569 (2013). Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/18/2024. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2024) (Entered: 09/18/2024)
09/13/24	Samsara Inc v. Motive Technologies Inc 3:24-CV-06049 ( N.D. CA )	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re [76] ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Expedited Relief Regarding Submitted Matters re [47] Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Defendant Motive Technologies, Inc. from Proceeding with Arbitration ) Opposition to Samsara's Civil L.R. 7-11 Motion for Expedited Relief Regarding Submitted Matters filed byMotive Technologies Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Proposed Order)(Bloch, David) (Filed on 9/13/2024) (Entered: 09/13/2024) OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re [76] ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Expedited Relief Regarding Submitted Matters re [47] Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Defendant Motive Technologies, Inc. from Proceeding with Arbitration ) Opposition to Samsara's Civil L.R. 7-11 Motion for Expedited Relief Regarding Submitted Matters filed byMotive Technologies Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Proposed Order)(Bloch, David) (Filed on 9/13/2024) (Entered: 09/13/2024)
09/13/24	Samsara Inc v. Motive Technologies Inc 3:24-CV-06049 ( N.D. CA )	ORDER by Judge James Donato granting [77] Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Joseph A. Loy. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2024) (Entered: 09/13/2024)
09/13/24	Samsara Inc v. Motive Technologies Inc 3:24-CV-06049 ( N.D. CA )	* ERRONEOUS ENTRY. PLEASE DISREGARD. * [Electronic filing error]. Attorney Joseph A. Loy needs to update the ECF account with the firm name and address as the docket only shows the email address. Re: [78] Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice. (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2024) Modified on 9/13/2024 (mcl, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/13/2024)
09/13/24	Samsara Inc v. Motive Technologies Inc 3:24-CV-06049 ( N.D. CA )	Set/Reset Deadlines as to [47] Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Defendant Motive Technologies, Inc. from Proceeding with Arbitration. Motion Hearing set for 10/17/2024 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2024) (Entered: 09/13/2024)
09/12/24	Samsara Inc v. Motive Technologies Inc 3:24-CV-06049 ( N.D. CA )	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice for Joseph A. Loy ( Filing fee $ 328, receipt number ACANDC-19841575.) filed by Samsara Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Certificate of Good Standing)(Loy, Joseph) (Filed on 9/12/2024) (Entered: 09/12/2024)
09/12/24	Samsara Inc v. Motive Technologies Inc 3:24-CV-06049 ( N.D. CA )	ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Expedited Relief Regarding Submitted Matters re [47] Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Defendant Motive Technologies, Inc. from Proceeding with Arbitration filed by Samsara Inc.. Responses due by 9/16/2024. (Attachments: # [1] Declaration of Ellisen S. Turner, # [2] Proposed Order)(Turner, Ellisen) (Filed on 9/12/2024) (Entered: 09/12/2024)
09/12/24	Samsara Inc v. Motive Technologies Inc 3:24-CV-06049 ( N.D. CA )	Renotice motion hearing re [47] Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin Defendant Motive Technologies, Inc. from Proceeding with Arbitration filed bySamsara Inc.. (Related document(s) [47] ) (Turner, Ellisen) (Filed on 9/12/2024) (Entered: 09/12/2024)
09/12/24	Samsara Inc v. Motive Technologies Inc 3:24-CV-06049 ( N.D. CA )	OBJECTIONS to re [72] Renotice motion hearing, for failure to follow LRs 7-2(a) and 7-10 by Motive Technologies Inc.. (Bloch, David) (Filed on 9/12/2024) (Entered: 09/12/2024)
09/11/24	Samsara Inc v. Motive Technologies Inc 3:24-CV-06049 ( N.D. CA )	MOTION to Stay re [26] Affidavit in Support of Motion, [27] Received Document, [28] Received Document, [30] Received Document, [29] MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Disposition of United States International Trade Commission Investigation RE-NOTICE OF PENDING MOTIONS filed by Motive Technologies Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 10/17/2024 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. Responses due by 9/25/2024. Replies due by 10/2/2024. (Bloch, David) (Filed on 9/11/2024) (Entered: 09/11/2024) MOTION to Stay re [26] Affidavit in Support of Motion, [27] Received Document, [28] Received Document, [30] Received Document, [29] MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Disposition of United States International Trade Commission Investigation RE-NOTICE OF PENDING MOTIONS filed by Motive Technologies Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 10/17/2024 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. Responses due by 9/25/2024. Replies due by 10/2/2024. (Bloch, David) (Filed on 9/11/2024) (Entered: 09/11/2024)