MyECHeck, Inc. v. Zipmark, Inc. et al

Filing 22

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/30/15 re 21 EXTENDING Zipmark's time to further respond to the Complaint by 30 days and Zipmark's Answer shall be due no later than 4/30/15. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

PAUL D. TRIPODI II, State Bar No. 162380
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
633 West Fifth Street
Suite 1550
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
ZIPMARK, INC. and JAY BHATTACHARYA

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
MYECHECK, INC. a California Corporation,
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ZIPMARK, INC., JAY BHATTACHARYA, and )
Does 1 – 20, Inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT STIPULATION
14-CV-2399-JAM-KJN

CASE NO.: 14-CV-2399-JAM-KJN
JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING
THE TIME TO ANSWER
Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez

1

Pursuant to L.R. 143 and L.R. 144, the parties jointly submit this Stipulation.

2

WHEREAS, on October 10, 2014, plaintiff MyECheck, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed the above-

3

captioned complaint against Zipmark, Inc. and Jay Bhattacharya (collectively “Defendants”)

4

(ECF No.1);

5
6
7

WHEREAS, Plaintiff did not serve a copy of the Complaint on Defendants, but
Defendants subsequently agreed to waive service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d);
WHEREAS, on December 23, 2014, the parties submitted a joint stipulation waiving

8

service and setting a date of January 8, 2015 for Defendants to answer, move, or otherwise

9

respond to the Complaint (ECF No. 5);

10
11
12

WHEREAS, on January 8, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint in its
entirety (ECF No. 6);
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’

13

motion to dismiss the Complaint, and, inter alia, dismissed all claims against Defendant Jay

14

Bhattacharya (ECF No. 19);

15
16

WHEREAS, Defendant Zipmark, Inc. (“Zipmark”) has not yet filed an Answer to the
Complaint;

17

WHEREAS, Zipmark’s Answer is presently due March 31, 2015;

18

WHEREAS, the parties would like to have additional time to engage in settlement

19
20

discussions prior to Zipmark’s Answer being filed;
It is hereby STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the undersigned counsel for

21

the parties that Zipmark’s time to further respond to the Complaint shall be extended by thirty

22

(30) days, and Zipmark’s Answer shall be due no later than April 30, 2015.

23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT STIPULATION
14-CV-2399-JAM-KJN

1

Dated: March 27, 2015

2
By: /s/ Brian R. Katz
Brian R. Katz

3
4

Attorney for Plaintiff
MyECheck, Inc.

5
6
7

Dated: March 27, 2015

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation

8
9
By: /s/ Paul D. Tripodi, II
Paul D. Tripodi, II

10
11

Attorneys for Defendants
Zipmark, Inc. and Jay Bhattacharya

12
13
14
15

Dated: March 30, 2015

IT IS SO ORDERED

16
/s/ John A. Mendez____________
Honorable Judge John A. Mendez

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT STIPULATION
CV-00543-JAM-KJN

-2-