ADDITIONAL CASES People Center, Inc. d/b/a Rippling, Counterclaimant v. Ripple Analytics Inc., Counterclaimant-Defendant MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Rarely in civil litigation is a case dismissed for failure to join a “real party in interest” under Rule 17(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, mainly because that rule encompasses generous remedial procedures which allow litigants to remedy any error through ratification, joinder or substitution within a “reasonable period.” See FED. R. CIV. P. (a)(3). Of course, these procedures cannot help a litigant who fails or refuses to properly invoke them. In this case, despite numerous objections by defendant since 2021, inquiry by the Court and repeated representations made by plaintiff’s counsel, the plaintiff, which no longer owns the trademark in question, the associated goodwill or any claims made in this action, has failed to effectively remedy this defect. As such, defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 17 is — surprisingly — meritorious and, for the reasons that follow, is granted. Background This action was commenced via the filing of a complaint in February 2020 by plaintiff Ripple Analytics Inc. Docket Entry (“DE”) 1. In sum and substance, the complaint purports to set forth claims for trademark infringement and unfair competition, the latter theory arising under both state and federal law. See generally id. The allegations state that plaintiff owns a registered federal trademark (U.S. Reg. 5,430,908), issued in March 2018, for the use of the word “RIPPLE” in connection with human-resources related software and complains of alleged infringement by defendant for its use of “RIPPLING” in relation to a similar product. Id.
1-6. The complaint, repeatedly and unequivocally, alleges that “Plaintiff owns all right, title and interest in and to the RIPPLE® mark.” Id.
