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: (323) 210-2900
Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
Email: ptripodi@wsgr.com
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-
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?