Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al
Filing
21
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 19 RE: SECOND FURTHER EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC. TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 11/7/12. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2012)
1
2
3
4
COOLEY LLP
MARK F. LAMBERT (197410)
(mlambert@cooley.com)
Five Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
Telephone:
(650) 843-5000
Facsimile:
(650) 849-7400
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP
Stephen S. Rabinowitz
(srabinowitz@friedfrank.com)
Randy Eisensmith (pro hac vice)
(randy.eisensmith@friedfrank.com)
One New York Plaza
New York, New York 10004
Telephone:
(212) 859-8000
Facsimile:
(212) 859-4000
Attorneys for Defendant
ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC.
12
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
16
17
CEPHEID,
Plaintiff,
18
19
20
Case No. CV12-04411 (EMC)
v.
ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC.
and F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD.,
21
Defendants.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE: SECOND FURTHER
EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR
DEFENDANT ROCHE MOLECULAR
SYSTEMS, INC. TO ANSWER OR
OTHERWISE RESPOND TO FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT [FRCP
15(A); C.L.R. 6-1(B); 6-2(A)]
22
23
24
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1 and 6-2 and Rule 15(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
25
Procedure (FRCP), this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order is entered into by and between Plaintiff
26
Cepheid and Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. (“Roche Molecular”) by and through
27
their respective counsel.
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
STIP AND PROP’D ORDER TO EXT. TIME TO ANS.
OR RSPD TO COMPLAINT
CV12-04411
1
2
WHEREAS Cepheid filed its initial Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (“Complaint”)
on August 21, 2012;
3
WHEREAS Cepheid filed its First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
4
(“Amended Complaint”) on September 14, 2012, prior to the due date for Roche Molecular to
5
answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint;
6
WHEREAS counsel for Roche Molecular requested, and counsel for Cepheid agreed, to
7
extend the time for Roche Molecular to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended
8
Complaint to and including November 2, 2012;
9
WHEREAS the Parties submitted a Stipulation and Proposed Order re: Extension of
10
Deadline for Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. to Answer or Otherwise Response to First
11
Amended Complaint [Dkt. 8] on September 21, 2012, which the Court entered as an Order dated
12
September 24, 2012;
13
WHEREAS lead counsel for Defendant Roche Molecular, Stephen Rabinowitz, and
14
Randy Eisensmith of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, requested a further extension
15
of time for Roche Molecular to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint due
16
to the prolonged disruption of power and closure of their New York City office in view of
17
Hurricane Sandy, and counsel for Cepheid agreed to extend such time to November 9, 2012;
18
WHEREAS the Parties entered into a Stipulation and Proposed Order re: Further
19
Extension of Deadline for Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. to Answer or Otherwise
20
Response to First Amended Complaint [Dkt. 14] on October 31, 2012, requesting that the Court
21
set November 9, 2012 as the deadline for Roche Molecular’s responsive pleading, and the Court
22
issued an Order approving that request on November 1, 2012 (the “November 1, 2012 Order”)
23
[Dkt. 15];
24
WHEREAS subsequent to the issuance of the November 1, 2012 Order, Mr. Rabinowitz
25
contacted counsel for Cepheid and requested a further extension of the responsive pleading
26
deadline until November 16, 2012, in view of the continued and prolonged closure of Fried
27
Frank’s offices due to storm damage and the general disruption of basic services in the
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1072836 v2/HN
2.
STIP AND PROP’D ORDER TO EXT. TIME TO ANS.
OR RSPD TO COMPLAINT
CV12-04411
1
surrounding area (see Declaration of Stephen S. Rabinowitz, filed herewith), and counsel for
2
Cepheid graciously agreed to this second further request for extension; and
3
WHEREAS this second further stipulation to extend the time for Roche Molecular to
4
answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint will not alter the date of any event
5
or any deadline already fixed by Court order, other than the November 9, 2012 deadline set forth
6
in the November 1, 2012 Order, and this stipulation and the Declaration of Stephen S. Rabinowitz
7
filed herewith is therefore in accordance with Civil Local Rule 6-1(b) and 6-2;
8
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
9
The deadline for Roche Molecular to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended
10
11
Complaint is extended to and including November 16, 2012.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
12
13
Dated: November 6, 2012
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
14
15
/s/ Erik R. Puknys
Erik R. Puknys (SBN 190926)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CEPHEID
16
17
18
Dated: November 6, 2012
19
COOLEY LLP
/s/ Mark F. Lambert
Mark F. Lambert (SBN 197410)
Attorneys for Defendant
ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1072836 v2/HN
3.
STIP AND PROP’D ORDER TO EXT. TIME TO ANS.
OR RSPD TO COMPLAINT
CV12-04411
1
FILER’S ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO L.R. 5-1(i)(3)
2
3
I, Mark F. Lambert, attest that concurrence in the filing of this Stipulation and [Proposed]
4
Order Re: Further Extension of Deadline for Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. to
5
Answer or Otherwise Respond to First Amended Complaint has been obtained from each of the
6
other Signatories hereto.
7
Executed this 6th day of November, 2012, at Palo Alto, California.
8
9
/s/ Mark F. Lambert
Mark F. Lambert (SBN 197410)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1072836 v2/HN
4.
STIP AND PROP’D ORDER TO EXT. TIME TO ANS.
OR RSPD TO COMPLAINT
CV12-04411
1
Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore;
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
11/7/12
UNIT
ED
S
Dated:
RT
U
O
RT
9
dwa
Judge E
ER
H
10
11
hen
rd M. C
NO
8
FO
7
R NIA
ERED
O ORD Judge
United States District
IT IS S
6
LI
5
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
A
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COOLEY LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
PALO ALTO
1072836 v2/HN
5.
STIP AND PROP’D ORDER TO EXT. TIME TO ANS.
OR RSPD TO COMPLAINT
CV12-04411
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?