Alibaba.com Hong Kong Limited et al v. P.S. Products Inc et al

Filing 25

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT re 23 Stipulation filed by Alibaba.com Inc, Alibaba.com Hong Kong Limited. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 22, 2010. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2010)

Download PDF
Alibaba.com Hong Kong Limited et al v. P.S. Products Inc et al Doc. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 FENWICK & WEST LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O DARRYL M. WOO (CSB NO. 100513) dwoo@fenwick.com RYAN J. MARTON (CSB NO. 223979) rmarton@fenwick.com LESLIE A. KRAMER (CSB NO. 253313) lkramer@fenwick.com FENWICK &WEST LLP 555 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 875-2300 Facsimile: (415) 281-1350 Attorneys for Plaintiff s Alibaba.com Hong Kong Limited and Alibaba.com, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ALIBABA.COM HONG KONG LIMITED, a Hong Kong corporation, and ALIBABA.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, v. Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:10-cv-04457 WHA STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 P.S. PRODUCTS, INC., an Arkansas corporation, and BILLY PENNINGTON, an individual, Defendants. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Alibaba.com Hong Kong Limited and Alibaba.com, Inc. (collectively, Alibaba) filed this declaratory judgment action on October 1, 2010; WHEREAS, Defendants P.S. Products, Inc. and Billy Pennington (collectively, Defendants) filed their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer ("Motion") on October 27, 2010; WHEREAS, the Motion is currently scheduled for hearing on January 13, 2011; WHEREAS, Alibaba intends to file their First Amended Complaint, attached as Exhibit A; WHEREAS, Defendants consent to the filing of the First Amended Complaint pursuant to STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CASE NO. 3:10-CV-04457 WHA Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 FENWICK & WEST LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O Federal Rule 15(a)(2); WHEREAS, in light of the First Amended Complaint, Defendants' Motion is moot and, therefore, Defendants agree to withdraw that Motion; WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and agreed that Defendants' deadline to respond to the First Amended Complaint shall be January 26, 2011; NOW THEREFORE, IT IS STIPULATED BY THE UNDERSIGNED PARTIES that: 1. Subject to the Court's approval, the First Amended Complaint is deemed filed; 2. Defendants' Motion is moot and hereby withdrawn; 3. Defendants' deadline to respond to the First Amended Complaint is now January 26, 2011. SO STIPULATED. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Dated: December 22, 2010 FENWICK & WEST LLP By: /s/ Ryan J. Marton Ryan J. Marton Attorneys for Plaintiffs Alibaba.com Hong Kong Limited and Alibaba.com, Inc. Dated: December 22, 2010 STEWART LAW FIRM By: /s/ Chris H. Stewart Chris H. Stewart Attorneys for Defendants P.S. Products, Inc. and Billy Pennington 2 CASE NO. 3:10-CV-04457 WHA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 FENWICK & WEST LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T LAW S A N FR A N C I S C O ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45 I, Ryan J. Marton, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from any signatories indicated by a "conformed" signature (/s/) within this e-filed document. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 22nd day of December 2010, at San Francisco, California. FENWICK & WEST LLP By: /s/ Ryan J. Marton Ryan J. Marton Attorneys for Plaintiffs Alibaba.com Hong Kong Limited and Alibaba.com, Inc. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: December ___, 2010 By: Honorable William H. Alsup 3 CASE NO. 3:10-CV-04457 WHA

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?