Genetic Technologies Limited v. Agilent Technologies, Inc.
Filing
99
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO RESCHEDULE MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS HEARING. Motion Hearing set for 5/29/2014 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg.Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 5/6/14. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2014)
1
2
3
4
Robert J. Goldman (CSB# 189922)
robert.goldman@ropesgray.com
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284
Tel: (650) 617-4000
Fax: (650) 617-4090
5
Attorneys for Defendant
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
6
[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
8
9
10
11
GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,
an Australian corporation,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
v.
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:12-cv-01616-RS
ORDER
JOINT STIPULATION TO
RESCHEDULE NOTICED HEARING
DATE FOR PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO
STRIKE AND DISMISS
Courtroom: 3
Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE NOTICED HEARING DATE FOR
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS
Case No. 3:12-cv-01616-RS
1
2
Plaintiff Genetic Technologies Limited (“Plaintiff”) and defendant Agilent
Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”), hereby stipulate as follows:
3
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed its (1) Notice of Motion and
4
Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 89);
5
and (2) Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim IV (Dkt. No. 90);
6
and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s motions were noticed for a May 22, 2014 Hearing Date;
7
8
and
9
WHEREAS, counsel for Defendant first notified counsel for Plaintiff on April
10
15, 2014, that counsel was not available for a May 22 hearing because counsel’s daughter will
11
be graduating from college in Baltimore, MD, that day; and
12
WHEREAS, counsel for Defendant notified counsel for Plaintiff that it would be
13
available to participate in a hearing on May 29, 2014, if the Court elects to hold a hearing on
14
Plaintiff’s motions; and
15
WHEREAS, no Court-ordered deadlines will be altered by this extension:
16
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties pursuant to L.R. Civ.
17
7-7(b)(1) that the Hearing Date for Plaintiff’s Motions will be continued until May 29, 2014, to
18
the extent the Court wishes to hold a hearing on Plaintiff’s motions.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Respectfully submitted,
May 2, 2014
By /s/ Robert J. Goldman
Robert J. Goldman (CSB# 189922)
robert.goldman@ropesgray.com
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
East Palo Alto, California 94303-2284
Tel: (650) 617-4000
Fax: (650) 617-4090
Christopher J. Harnett
christopher.harnett@ropesgray.com
Kevin J. Post
kevin.post@ropesgray.com
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036-8704
Tel: (212) 596-9000
JOINT STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE NOTICED HEARING DATE FOR
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS
Case No. 3:12-cv-01616-RS
1
Fax: (212) 596-9090
1
Attorneys for Defendant
AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
2
3
4
May 2, 2014
5
6
7
8
9
10
By /s/ Ben Lieb
Robert R. Brunelli
rbrunelli@sheridanross.com
Benjamin B. Lieb
blieb@sheridanross.com
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 Broadway, Suite 1200
Denver, Colorado 80202-5141
Tel: (303) 863-9700
Fax: (303) 863-0223
litigation@sheridanross.com
Rodney B. Sorensen
rbs@paynefears.com
PAYNE & FEARS LLP
Attorney at Law
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 398-7860
Fax: (415) 398-7863
11
12
13
14
Attorneys for Plaintiff
GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
15
16
17
18
It is so ORDERED.
19
20
21
22
23
Dated: _______, 2014
5/6
Honorable Richard Seeborg
United States District Judge
Northern District of California
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION TO RESCHEDULE NOTICED HEARING DATE FOR
PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO STRIKE AND DISMISS
Case No. 3:12-cv-01616-RS
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?