Entrepreneur Media Inc v. American City Business Journals Inc et al

Filing 13

Third STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Answer to July 15, 2011 re Complaint - (Discovery), Complaint - (Discovery) 1 filed by defendant American City Business Journals Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sullivan, Sean)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST. SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 TELEPHONE (213) 633-6800 FAX (213) 633-6899 JAMES D. NGUYEN (State Bar No. 179370) jimmynguyen@dwt.com 6 SEAN M. SULLIVAN (State Bar No. 229104) seansullivan@dwt.com 7 5 8 Attorneys for Defendant 9 AMERICAN CITY BUSINESS JOURNALS, INC. 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA, INC., a California corporation, 15 16 Plaintiff, vs. 17 AMERICAN CITY BUSINESS 18 JOURNALS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. Case No. 11-cv-00722-JVS-AN THIRD STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT BY 14 DAYS (L.R. 8-3) Complaint Served: May 12, 2011 Current Response Date: July 1, 2011 New Response Date: July 15, 2011 23 24 25 26 27 28 THIRD STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT DWT 17511294v1 0068845-000004 1 This stipulation is entered by and between plaintiff Entrepreneur Media, Inc. 2 (“EMI”) and defendant American City Business Journals, Inc. (“ACBJ”) through 3 their respective counsel of record, with reference to the following facts: 4 EMI filed the Complaint in this action on May 11, 2011, and served the 5 Complaint and Summons on ACBJ on May 12, 2011. Thus, ACBJ’s response to the 6 Complaint was originally due on June 2, 2011. 7 8 On May 31, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation to extend the deadline for ACBJ to respond to the Complaint by 15 days, to June 17, 2011. (Dkt. No. 8.) 9 On June 15, 2011, the parties filed a second stipulation to extend the deadline 10 for ACBJ to respond to the Complaint by an additional 14 days, with the total 11 extension of time granted for ACBJ to respond to the complaint still under 30 days. 12 (Dkt. No. 11.) 13 The parties have been engaged in settlement discussions in an attempt to 14 resolve this matter. EMI sent ACBJ an initial draft of a settlement agreement on 15 June 14, 2011, to which ACBJ responded with comments on June 22, 2011. EMI 16 sent a revised draft of the settlement agreement to ACBJ on June 29, 2011, which 17 ACBJ is in the process of reviewing. To provide the parties sufficient time to 18 finalize a resolution, counsel for the parties have agreed to extend the deadline for 19 ACBJ to respond to the Complaint by two weeks. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 THIRD STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT DWT 17511294v1 0068845-000004 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899 1 2 THEREFORE, EMI and ACBJ, by and through their respective attorneys, do hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 3 ACBJ shall have until July 15, 2011, to respond to the Complaint. 4 This stipulation is without prejudice to ACBJ’s right to seek, by stipulation or 5 otherwise, any further extensions of time to respond to the Complaint that may be 6 appropriate. 7 8 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 9 10 Dated: June 30, 2011 11 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP By: 12 13 Attorneys for Defendant AMERICAN CITY BUSINESS JOURNALS, INC. 14 15 /s/ Sean M. Sullivan James D. Nguyen Sean M. Sullivan Dated: June 30, 2011 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 16 By: 17 18 19 Perry J. Viscounty Jennifer L. Barry Sean P. McClure Attorneys for Plaintiff ENTREPRENEUR MEDIA, INC. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 THIRD STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT DWT 17511294v1 0068845-000004 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017-2566 (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899

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?