LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated
Filing
193
NOTICE OF LODGING filed re Consent to Magistrate and Joint Stipulation re Status Conference,,, 192 (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate Judge)(Jones, Michael)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Forrest A. Hainline III (SBN 64166)
fhainline@goodwinprocter.com
Hong-An Vu (SBN 266268)
hvu@goodwinprocter.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Tel.: 415.733.6000
Fax.: 415.677.9041
Michael T. Jones (SBN 290660)
mjones@goodwinprocter.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
135 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, California 94025-1105
Tel.: 650.752.3100
Fax.: 650.853.1038
Brian W. Cook (Pro Hac Vice)
bcook@goodwinprocter.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109-2802
Tel.: 617.570.1000
Fax.: 617.523.1231
Attorneys for Defendant
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED
16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
WESTERN DIVISION
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware Case No. 2:12-cv-09942-GAF-AGR
corporation,
NOTICE OF LODGING OF
Plaintiff,
CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE AND
JOINT STIPULATION
v.
Judge:
Judge Gary A. Feess
ROCKET LAWYER
Courtroom: 740
INCORPORATED, a Delaware
255 East Temple Street
corporation,
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Action Filed: November 20, 2012
Defendant.
25
26
27
28
973167.2
1
LegalZoom.com, Inc. and Rocket Lawyer Incorporated (the “Parties”), hereby
2
lodge the attached form CV-11D Consent to magistrate and stipulate and agree as
3
follows:
4
1.
5
A. Feess is scheduled to retire before the resolution of this case.
6
7
2.
10
The Court permitted the Parties an opportunity to decide whether to
consent to one of the available magistrates or to turn to the Wheel.
8
9
On November 20, 2014, the Court informed the Parties that Judge Gary
3.
After meeting and conferring, the Parties consent to have Judge Suzanne
H. Segal conduct all further proceedings in the present case, including trial and final
judgment.
11
4.
The Parties further agree that if they elect to pursue a settlement
12
conference in this case, they would do so with Judge Jay C. Gandhi as originally
13
proposed in the Rule 26(f) Report, and pursuant to the Court’s current scheduling
14
order.
15
5.
If Judge Segal is unavailable to take this case, then the Parties consent to
16
have Judge Gandhi conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and
17
final judgment; and if in such a circumstance the Parties elect to pursue a settlement
18
conference, then they would do so before Judge Segal under the Court’s current
19
scheduling order.
20
21
6.
Should Judge Segal be unavailable, the Parties shall promptly submit
form CV-11D consenting to Judge Gandhi.
22
7.
If neither Judge Segal or Judge Gandhi are available, the Parties shall
23
have an opportunity to meet and confer about consenting to a different magistrate
24
judge or about whether to decide to go to the Wheel.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
1
2
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: November 25, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
3
By:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
/s/Michael T. Jones
Forrest A. Hainline III
fhainline@goodwinprocter.com
Hong-An Vu (SBN 266268)
hvu@goodwinprocter.com
Michael T. Jones (SBN 290660)
mjones@goodwinprocter.com
Brian W. Cook (Pro Hac Vice)
bcook@goodwinprocter.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Tel.: 415.733.6000
Fax.: 415.677.9041
Attorneys for Defendant
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Dated: November 25, 2014
By: /s/Aaron Allan (with permission)
Patricia L. Glaser
pglaser@glaserweil.com
Fred D. Heather
fheather@glaserweil.com
Aaron Allan
aallan@glaserweil.com
GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO
LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard,
19th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel.: (310) 553-3000
Fax.: (310) 556-2920
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?