Solenoid Devices, Inc. v. Ledex, Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 20230.,20230. |
| Parties | SOLENOID DEVICES, INC., Appellant, v. LEDEX, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
William H. Pavitt, Jr., Charles H. Schwartz, Smyth, Roston & Pavitt, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Guy Porter Smith, Miketta, Glenny, Poms & Smith, Los Angeles, Cal., H. Talman Dybvig, Dybvig & Dybvig, Dayton, Ohio, for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and THOMPSON, District Judge.
Solenoid filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
Solenoid Devices manufactures and sells a rotary solenoid, an electric magnetic device. Ledex, Inc., as owner of a solenoid patent contends the product of Solenoid Devices infringes its patent. But here, in the vernacular, the record indicates that the dispute has gone no further than the "jawbone" stage which occurred during negotiations by Ledex to buy assets of Solenoid.
Upon receipt of the plaintiff's complaint, without waiting for an answer, the district court entered an order of dismissal. Then Solenoid Devices moved for a hearing and got it. After the hearing the district court affirmed its previous order, resting it upon "no real controversy" and upon its power to refuse to take a declaratory action. Upon this appeal, we affirm.
28 U.S.C. § 2201 reads as follows:
Of course, there must be an actual controversy to get subject matter jurisdiction. Here that would probably mean a controversy appropriate for decision, not a question of naked power such as would be involved in a federal court attempting to grant a divorce.
The banter between the parties, short of a threat to file a suit or harassing or threatening to harass the trade (the purchasers of the devices), goes far to undercut the requisites of an actual controversy. It would appear to us that this situation of having only a business argument justified the court in rejecting the complaint. In the federal declaratory judgment cases, the word "may" has never been held to uniformly mean "shall."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
...efficient remedy is available in the State Court. McGlotten v. Connally, 338 F.Supp. 448 (D.C.D.C., 1972). In Solenoid Devices, Inc. v. Ledex, Inc., 375 F.2d 444 (C.A.9, 1967), it was expressly held that the word "may" in the Declaratory Judgment Act does not mean "shall." The statute does ......
-
Wood v. Santa Barbara Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
...This right of amendment can survive dismissal of a complaint if such dismissal precedes the defendant's answer. Solenoid Devices, Inc. v. Ledex, Inc., 375 F.2d 444 (9th Cir.1967). However, the docket sheet in this case records three answers filed before Wood made his May 4 motion to amend. ......
-
Native Village of Noatak v. Blatchford, 93-35380
...judicial determination of moot questions. See Williams v. Alioto, 549 F.2d 136, 141 n. 4 (9th Cir.1977); Solenoid Devices, Inc. v. Ledex, Inc., 375 F.2d 444, 445 (9th Cir.1967). Because we have already determined that Noatak's claim is moot, the issuance of a declaratory judgment would be i......
-
Owatonna Manufacturing Company v. Melroe Company, 4-68 Civ. 163.
...of a patent declaratory judgment action in Solenoid Devices, Inc. v. Ledex, Inc., 241 F.Supp. 337 (S.D. Calif. 1965), aff'd, 375 F.2d 444 (9th Cir. 1967). In Solenoid the infringement claim arose during negotiations for the sale of the assets of plaintiff corporation to defendant corporatio......