ServiceNow, Inc. v. Stonebranch, Inc.
Filing
24
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO HAVE PENDING MOTIONS HEARD ON THE SAME DAY. Motion Hearing set for 11/21/2013 01:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Richard Seeborg. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 11/4/13. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2013)
COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
One Ferry Building, Suite 200, San Francisco, California 94111-4213
415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663
1 JULIA D. GREER (State Bar No. 200479)
LAUREN S. KOWAL (State Bar No. 224976)
2 COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
One Ferry Building, Suite 200
3 San Francisco, California 94111-4213
Telephone: 415.391.4800
4 Facsimile: 415.989.1663
Email: ef-jdg@cpdb.com
ef-lsk@cpdb.com
5
6 SIMON R. MALKO (pro hac vice pending)
MORRIS, MANNING & MARTIN, LLP
7 1600 Atlanta Financial Center
3343 Peachtree Road, NE
8 Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: 404.233.7000
9 Facsimile: 404.365.9532
Email: sxm@mmmlaw.com
10
Attorneys for Defendant
11 STONEBRANCH, INC.
12
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
16
17 SERVICENOW, INC., a Delaware
Corporation,
18
Plaintiff,
19
v.
20
STONEBRANCH, INC., a Georgia
21 Corporation, and DOES 1-5,
Case No. 3:13-cv-04243-RS
22
Case filed: September 12, 2013
Trial Date: None Set
Defendants.
23
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO HAVE PENDING MOTIONS
HEARD ON THE SAME DATE
Judge:
Crtrm.:
Hon. Richard Seeborg
Three
24
25
26
27
28
15393.001 2644454v1
3:13-cv-04243-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: HEARING DATES
1
Plaintiff ServiceNow, Inc. (“ServiceNow”) and Defendant Stonebranch, Inc.
2 (“Stonebranch”) submit the following Stipulation for the Court’s consideration:
3
WHEREAS, on October 14, 2013, Stonebranch filed a Motion to Dismiss this matter in its
4 entirety for lack of personal jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 16), which will be fully briefed as of November
COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
One Ferry Building, Suite 200, San Francisco, California 94111-4213
415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663
5 4, 2013;
6
WHEREAS, Stonebranch’s Motion to Dismiss is presently set for hearing before this
7 Court on December 12, 2013;
8
WHEREAS, on October 18, 2013 ServiceNow filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in
9 this matter (Dkt. No. 18-3), which will be fully briefed as of November 7, 2013;
10
WHEREAS, ServiceNow’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is presently set for hearing
11 in this Court on November 21, 2013;
12
WHEREAS, lead trial counsel for Stonebranch is located in Atlanta, Georgia, and must
13 travel to attend the hearings in this case;
14
WHEREAS, the parties agree that the Court should decide the issue of jurisdiction
15 concomitantly or in advance of the question of whether injunctive relief is warranted;
16
WHEREAS, the parties agree that by opposing ServiceNow’s Motion for Preliminary
17 Injunction and submitting this Stipulation, Stonebranch has not and will not waive its arguments
18 with respect to personal jurisdiction;
19
THEREFORE, the parties believe that both Stonebranch’s pending Motion to Dismiss and
20 ServiceNow’s pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction should be heard on the same date,
21 November 21, 2013, or on the first hearing date thereafter acceptable to the Court and the parties.
22
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
23
24 DATED: November 4, 2013
COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
25
26
By:
27
28
15393.001 2644454v1
/s/ Julia D. Greer
JULIA D. GREER
Attorneys for Defendant
STONEBRANCH, INC.
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: HEARING DATES
3:13-cv-04243-RS
1 DATED: November 4, 2013
FENWICK & WEST LLP
2
3
By:
4
COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
One Ferry Building, Suite 200, San Francisco, California 94111-4213
415.391.4800 • Fax 415.989.1663
5
/s/ Ilana S. Rubel
ILANA S. RUBEL
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SERVICENOW, INC.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 4
8 DATED: _______________, 2013
9
10
Hon. Richard Seeborg
United States District Court Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15393.001 2644454v1
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: HEARING DATES
3:13-cv-04243-RS
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?