See my earlier post on this lawsuit for background on this lawsuit. Since that post there have been four documents filed with the court. In reverse chronological order:
July 7, 2012: Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal (pdf)
June 28, 2012 Amended complaint (pdf)
June 27, 2012 Plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion to dismiss (pdf)
June 26, 2012 Order on scheduling conference (pdf)
The order on the scheduling conference is unimportant — it just sets a date for the scheduling conference wherein the parties decide on the schedule for the trial; that was set for August 27th.
The plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss is simply the plaintiff’s argument for why the case should not be dismissed, in which they argue that they have alleged the wrongdoing with enough specificity and that they have done enough to connect defendant Mesa Marketing (the only respondent among the defendants) to the wrongdoing. This is an expected response to defendant Mesa Marketing’s motion to dismiss.
The amended complaint appears to add some details to the previously submitted initial complaint and amended complaint.
The plaintiff’s notice of dismissal is confusing to me. I really do not understand why they would dismiss the case now. From the notice:
8. This dismissal is without prejudice to re-filing as to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants for misappropriation of Plaintiff’s trade secrets, and violations of the Stored Wire and Electronic Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2710, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and for any other claim that Plaintiff has, known or unknown, against Defendants.