Tiffany (NJ), LLC v. Miki Boutique, Inc et al

Filing 36

ORDER RE: THIRD STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT. Pursuant to stipulation, defendant shall respond by July 11, 2011. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 6/8/2011. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2011)

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

KENNETH E. KELLER (SBN 71450) [e-mail]
ANNE E. KEARNS (SBN: 183336) [e-mail]
Krieg, Keller, Sloan, Reilley & Roman LLP
555 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-2541
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Tiffany (NJ), LLC
EDWIN K. PRATHER (Cal. Bar No. 190536)
LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN PRATHER
461 Bush Street, Suite 350
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
MIKI BOUTIQUE, INC., a dissolved California
Corporation; MEI NG, an individual, individually
and jointly, d/b/a YUKI BOUTIQUE

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
MIKI BOUTIQUE, INC., a dissolved California )
)
corporation, and MEI NG, an individual,
)
individually and jointly, d/b/a YUKI
)
BOUTIQUE and DOES 1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
TIFFANY (NJ), LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company,

Case No. CV 11-1563 MMC
THIRD STIPULATION TO EXTEND
TIME TO RESPOND TO VERIFIED
COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Complaint filed: March 31, 2011

Pursuant to Local Rule 6.1(a), Plaintiff Tiffany (NJ), LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company (the “Plaintiff”), and Defendants, Miki Boutique, Inc. a dissolved California corporation,

25

and Mei Ng, an individual, individually and jointly, d/b/a Yuki Boutique (collectively the
26
27
28

“Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to a thirty (30) day
-1 THIRD STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No.: CV 11-1563 MMC

1
2

extension of time, up to and including July 11, 2011, for the Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s
Verified Complaint filed on March 31, 2011.

3

RECITALS
4

1.

5
6
7
8
9
10

On March 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint alleging trademark

infringement and counterfeiting, and false designation of origin against the Defendants (e-docket
1).
2.

Defendants were each served with their respective Summons and the Verified

Complaint on April 5, 2011 (Miki Boutique) (e-docket 23), and April 8, 2011 (Ng) (e-docket 24).
The parties previously stipulated that the Defendants’ response to the Verified Complaint was due

11

on May 10, 2011 (e-docket 30), which stipulation the Court approved (e-docket 31). To allow for
12
13

settlement discussions to continue, the parties further stipulated that the Defendants’ response to

14

the Verified Complaint is currently due on or before June 10, 2011, which the Court approved (e-

15

dockets 33, 34).

16

3.

The parties’ settlement discussions are still ongoing.

4.

The parties have recently notified Defendants’ insurance carrier of this action, and

17
18

are currently awaiting a response from the insurance carrier regarding defense coverage.

19

Accordingly, in order to allow (i) the insurance carrier an opportunity to review the notification
20
21

submitted in this matter, and make a determination regarding defense coverage and (ii) the

22

appearance of any additional counsel in connection with that coverage, Plaintiff and Defendants

23

have stipulated and agreed that a response to the Verified Complaint by Defendants shall be due no

24

later than July 11, 2011.

25

5.

This is the third request for an extension of time of the deadline for the Defendants

26

to respond to the Verified Complaint, and the parties represent the request for additional time will
27
28

not alter any deadline already fixed by the Court nor prejudice either party in this matter.
-2 THIRD STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No.: CV 11-1563 MMC

1

STIPULATION

2

Pursuant to Local Rule 6.1(a), the parties hereby stipulate, through their respective counsel,

3

that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint on or before
4
5
6

July 11, 2011.
DATED: June 7, 2011

KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY & ROMAN LLP.

7

____________/S/______________________
Anne E. Kearns
Attorneys for Plaintiff

8
9
10

DATED: June 7, 2011

LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN PRATHER

11

______________/S/__________________________
Edwin K. Prather
Attorneys for Defendants

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED

15
16

Date: June 8, 2011

______________________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18

DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45, §X.B

19

I, Anne E. Kearns, hereby declare pursuant to General Order 45, §X.B, that I have obtained

20
21

the concurrence in the filing of this document from the other signatory listed above.

22
23

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing declaration is true and correct.
Executed on June 7, 2011, in the City of San Francisco, California.

24

KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY & ROMAN LLP.

25

____________/S/______________________
Anne E. Kearns
Attorneys for Plaintiff

26
27
28
108946

-3 THIRD STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO
RESPOND TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No.: CV 11-1563 MMC