Match Group, LLC v. Bumble Trading Inc.

Western District of Texas, txwd-6:2018-cv-00080

Exhibit H

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

Exhibit H From: Caplan, Matt To: John Summers Cc: z/Bumble-Match.com; Deron Dacus; match@caldwellcc.com; John Palmer; Melissa Smith Subject: Re: Activity in Case 6:18-cv-00080-ADA Match Group, LLC v. Bumble Trading Inc. Motion to Dismiss Date: Friday, August 23, 2019 5:45:41 PM John, Apologies for the late reply but I am out of the office. The motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the two Bumble entities who were already parties to the lawsuit. I do not recall discussing Match adding additional claims against them as part of your amended pleading— we only discussed Match's desire to add new parties to the case and I certainly did not assent to the propriety of adding new parties or any claims Match would attempt to assert against them. With respect to whether leave to amend is required to assert new claims against the Bumble entities, we stand by the arguments in the motion to dismiss. In short, leave to amend as to the Bumble entities would be futile for the reasons set forth in the motion. We reserve all rights with respect to the newly-added defendants who will respond to the fourth amended complaint if / when required by applicable law. Matt Caplan Cooley LLP 310-528-1361 On Aug 23, 2019, at 7:30 PM, John Summers <jsummers@caldwellcc.com> wrote: Hi Matt, I am writing about Match's response to the Bumble Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Match's Fourth Amended Complaint. After delays in having your client(s) get back to us on proposal concerning non-Bumble and non-Match Group, LLC discovery issues, and Bumble's refusal by phone of a Match's proposed deal on July 18th, I wrote to you (and the whole Bumble team) on July 23rd indicating that we intended to added parties to the lawsuit on or before the deadline unless we reached agreement on discovery issues and the non-Bumble Defendants agreed to be bound by any adverse ruling against the Bumble Defendants on their Texas law counterclaims. After that, as you'll recall, you requested a phone call, which we had on July 25th (still over a week before the deadline to add parties). On that call, I told you that Match intended to amend its complaint to add an inducement theory and a declaratory judgment of non-liability theory in the Fourth Amended Complaint on that deadline unless your client(s) could agree to something along the lines of Match's proposed deal. We then spoke at least one more time the following week about issues related to additional parties as well as other discovery-related matters. Again, there was no mention of the necessity for leave. Let me know if you now recall those discussions differently and, if you disagree with my memory, let me know which parts were incorrect. On the deadline, Match then proceeded to do exactly what I told you it would do. On the following business day, I then asked the entire Cooley team whether they would agree to accept service for the non-Bumble Defendants. While Cooley ultimately declined to accept service, no one responded to indicate a belief that the Fourth Amended Complaint was improperly filed or inquired as to whether Match would be requesting leave. Indeed, not once in the two weeks following Match's filing did you or anyone on your team indicate that you believed leave was required, inquire as to whether Match was planning to request leave, or seek to meet and confer on whether Defendants would oppose such a motion. (If I missed that, please forward me the correspondence.) So, needless to say, I was pretty surprised to see a pleading accusing Match of "violating" the Scheduling Order and quoting a case implying that Match had been "indolent and cavalier" in filing its latest complaint. Again, I'm not sure if you're aware of those arguments or not, but they're in the filed pleading. This all seems a bit silly to me, and I think the Court would prefer to be dealing with different issues than these. Assuming for sake of argument that leave was required and your team just didn't realize it until two weeks after we had filed the Fourth Amended Complaint, do Defendants oppose a request for leave to file the Fourth Amended Complaint? If so, on what basis? We plan to request leave to file the Fourth Amended Complaint in the alternative and need to know whether to mark you down as opposed. Also be sure to let us know if it is the Bumble Defendants, the non-Bumble Defendants, or all Defendants that are opposing. We intend to file our response today, so a quick reply would be preferred. Regards, John From: TXW_USDC_Notice@txwd.uscourts.gov <TXW_USDC_Notice@txwd.uscourts.gov> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 6:38 PM To: cmecf_notices@txwd.uscourts.gov Subject: Activity in Case 6:18-cv-00080-ADA Match Group, LLC v. Bumble Trading Inc. Motion to Dismiss This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply. U.S. District Court [LIVE] Western District of Texas Notice of Electronic Filing The following transaction was entered by Drayton, Joseph on 8/16/2019 at 6:38 PM CDT and filed on 8/16/2019 Case Name: Match Group, LLC v. Bumble Trading Inc. Case Number: 6:18-cv-00080-ADA Filer: Bumble Holding, LTD Bumble Trading Inc. Document Number: 108 Docket Text: MOTION to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6), or in the Alternative, Strike Under Rule 12(f), Plaintiff Match Group, LLCs Fourth Amended Complaint by Bumble Holding, LTD, Bumble Trading Inc.. (Drayton, Joseph) 6:18-cv-00080-ADA Notice has been electronically mailed to: Bradley W. Caldwell bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com, 1612557420@filings.docketbird.com, bdefeo@caldwellcc.com Deron R Dacus ddacus@dacusfirm.com, dadams@dacusfirm.com John F. Summers jsummers@caldwellcc.com, mdelaney@caldwellcc.com, sreich@caldwellcc.com John P. Palmer palmer@namanhowell.com, templew@namanhowell.com Joseph M. Drayton jdrayton@cooley.com, smartinez@cooley.com Matthew D. Caplan mcaplan@cooley.com, efiling-notice@ecf.pacerpro.com, smartinez@cooley.com Melissa Richards Smith melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com, 4293145420@filings.docketbird.com, diana@gillamsmithlaw.com Michael G. Rhodes mrhodes@cooley.com, rlopez@cooley.com Rose S. Whelan rwhelan@cooley.com, efiling-notice@ecf.pacerpro.com, mderenzis@cooley.com Warren J. McCarty, III wmccarty@caldwellcc.com, bdefeo@caldwellcc.com, sross@caldwellcc.com 6:18-cv-00080-ADA Notice has been delivered by other means to: The following document(s) are associated with this transaction: Document description:Main Document Original filename:n/a Electronic document Stamp: [STAMP dcecfStamp_ID=1080075687 [Date=8/16/2019] [FileNumber=21824607- 0] [ba40236a8d9e617e71651f1e97b18f53bd74fb6530fc9068ed4147e2f4c05d5d5a fae595b29233f17bccb849a7ada7a42959082f045aa5e7b8ba7947e0f8b7cb]] This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosure by the sender's Email System Administrator.