Randhawa v. Skylux, Inc., et al.

Filing 135

STIPULATION and ORDER 134 signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 8/10/2012 extending the deadline for the Skylux Defendants to respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint to 9/24/2012. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Gregg A. Rapoport (SBN 136941)
BUSINESS LEGAL PARTNERS
135 W. Green Street, Suite 100
Pasadena, CA 91105
Direct Tel. [phone] Fax. [phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
SKYLUX INC., MUJEEB PUZHAKKARAILLATH,
and SKYLUX TELELINK PVT LTD

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SACRAMENTO DIVISION

10
11
12

MOHIT RANDHAWA aka HARPAL
Case No. 2:09−CV−02304−WBS−DAD
SINGH and SHANNON CALLNET PVT Hon. William B. Shubb
LTD,

13
v.

15
16
17
18

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE
FOR DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES
TO THE FOURTH AMENDED
COMPLAINT

Plaintiff,

14

SKYLUX INC., INTERACTIVE
INTELLIGENCE, INC., MUJEEB
PUZHAKKARAILLATH, SKYLUX
TELELINK PVT LTD and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive,

19

[Proposed Order Lodged]
Date:
Time:
Ctrm:

No Hearing Set
5

Defendants.

20
21
22

Plaintiffs Mohit Randhawa and Shannon Callnet Pvt Ltd. (together,

23

“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Skylux Inc., Skylux Telelink Pvt Ltd., and Mujeeb

24

Puzhakkaraillath (together, the “Skylux Defendants”) hereby submit the following

25

Stipulation, and for good cause request the Court’s approval thereof:
WHEREAS:

26
27
28

1.

This action was commenced in state court on May 27, 2009, and was
removed to this Court on August 20, 2009.
-1-

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES
TO THE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

2.

2
3

Plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint on August 10, 2010. (Docket
No. 86).

3.

On September 5, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay the entire action

4

pending arbitration between Plaintiff Shannon Callnet and Defendant

5

Interactive Intelligence, Inc. (Docket No. 88.)

6

4.

7
8

Amended Complaint. (Docket Nos. 90, 91.)
5.

On October 12, 2010, the Court heard oral argument on the motions to
dismiss, as well as on Plaintiffs’ motion to stay the action. (Docket No.

9
10
11

On September 8 and 9, 2010, defendants filed motions to dismiss the Fourth

101.)
6.

On October 18, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to stay the entire

12

action pending completion of arbitration. (Docket No. 102.) As to the

13

claims against the Skylux Defendants, the Court found that the “arbitrable

14

claims against Interactive and non-arbitrable claims against the Skylux

15

defendants sufficiently overlap in law and fact to suggest that the rest of the

16

claims should be stayed.” The Court then stated that it “will grant

17

Shannon’s Callnet’s motion to stay the claims against the Skylux defendants

18

and thus deny the Skylux defendants’ motion to dismiss.” (Id. at 7:13-27.)

19

7.

On December 9, 2011, the Court ruled: “As it appears that the action will be

20

in arbitration for the foreseeable future, this case shall be ordered

21

administratively closed.” (Docket No. 123 at 2:18-20.) The Court stayed all

22

proceedings. (Id. at 2:27-28.)

23

8.

24
25

On July 12, 2012, Interactive moved to vacate the stay and confirm its
arbitration award against Plaintiff Shannon Callnet. (Docket No. 124.)

9.

On August 3, 2012, the Court ordered the stay be lifted. (Docket No. 131.)

26

The Court further set for a Status Conference for September 4, 2012 “to

27

address the remaining claims against the Skylux defendants.”

28
-2STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES
TO THE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

1

10. The remaining parties (Plaintiffs and the Skylux Defendants) have submitted

2

a Joint Status Report seeking the Court’s clarification of the procedural

3

status of this case.

4

11. Plaintiffs are willing to extend the deadline for the Skylux Defendants to

5

respond to the Fourth Amended Complaint to September 24, 2012, to allow

6

time for the Court to issue the requested clarification.

7

NOW THEREFORE, the parties, through their counsel of record herein, now

8
9
10

STIPULATE AND AGREE to the following:
The time within which Defendants shall respond to the Fourth
Amended Complaint shall be extended to September 24, 2012.

11
12

Dated: August 10, 2012

BUSINESS LEGAL PARTNERS

13
14

t

By: /s/ Gregg A. Rapoport
Gregg A. Rapoport

15
Attorneys for Defendants
SKYLUX INC., MUJEEB
PUZHAKKARAILLATH, and
SKYLUX TELELINK PVT LTD

16
17
18
19
20
21

Dated: August 10, 2012

THE LAW OFFICE OF JAY IAN
ABOUDI
By:

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/s/ Jay Ian Aboudi
Jay Ian Aboudi

Attorney for Plaintiffs
MOHIT RANDHAWA aka HARPAL
SINGH and SHANNON CALLNET PVT
LTD
ORDER
Based on the stipulation entered by the parties, IT IS ORDERED
THAT the deadline for the Skylux Defendants to respond to the Fourth Amended
-3STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES
TO THE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2

Complaint shall be September 24, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

DATED: August 10, 2012

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES
TO THE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

PROOF OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, declare:
I am employed in the county of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over
the age of 18 and am not a party to the within action. My business address is: 135
W. Green St., Suite 100, Pasadena, California 91105 (the “firm”).
Upon my oath, I hereby state that the foregoing
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE
FOR DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES TO THE FOURTH AMENDED
COMPLAINT
is being filed electronically, and notice hereof will automatically be sent to all
counsel of record that participate in electronic filing, by operation of the Court’s
electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
In addition, if any attorneys are not participating in electronic filing, they are
identified below and have been mailed, via first-class postage, notice hereof on the
date this document is being electronically filed.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the above is true and correct. Executed on August 10, 2012, at
Pasadena, California.

14
15

By: /s/ Gregg A. Rapoport
Gregg A. Rapoport

t

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSES
1
TO THE FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT