Glassey et al v. Symmetricom, Inc.

Filing 31

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME 30 . Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 25 set for 4/2/2014 01:00 PM. Opposition due 2/26/2014. Case Management Conference set for 4/23/2014 10:00 AM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 2/10/14. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2014)

Download PDF
1 ROSS M. BABBITT CO., LPA Ross M. Babbitt (admitted pro hac vice) rbabbitt@babbitt-lawfirm.com 700 W. St. Clair Avenue, Suite 200 3 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Telephone: (216) 623-6346 2 4 MAHANY & ERTL 5 Brain H. Mahany (admitted pro hac vice) brian@mahanyertl.com 6 P.O. Box 511328 Milwuakee, Wisconsin 53203 7 Telephone: (414) 223-0464 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Todd S. Glassey and Michael E. McNeil 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13 14 15 GLASSEY ET AL, Case No. 3:13-cv-04662 (NC) 16 Plaintiff(s), 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 v. SYMMETRICOM, INC., Defendant(S). STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND ADR DEADLINES PURSUANT TO L.R. 61(b) Judge: Date: Time: Dept: The Honorable Nathanael Cousins March 12, 2014 3:00 PM Courtroom A, 15th Floor 24 25 26 WHEREAS, on October 7, 3013, Todd S. Glassey and Michael F. McNeil 27 28 1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO OPPOSE MOTION TO DISMISS AND CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case No. 3:13-cv-04662 (NC) 1 (“Plaintiffs”) filed the above-captioned complaint in this Court (“Complaint”); 2 WHEREAS, on October 8, 2013, the Court issued an Order Setting Initial 3 Case Management and ADR Deadlines setting the initial case management 4 conference for January 8, 2014 at 10:00 AM (Dkt. No. 5); 5 WHEREAS, on October 31, 2013, Defendant Symmetricom, Inc. 6 (“Symmetricom”) and Plaintiffs (together, “the Parties”) agreed that Symmetricom’s 7 answer or motion under Rule 12 must be filed by December 30, 2013; 8 WHEREAS, Symmetricom agreed to file a motion to dismiss all claims 9 against it on or before December 30, 2013; 10 WHEREAS, on December 13, 2013, the Parties filed a Stipulation and 11 Proposed Order to postpone the January 8, 2014 initial case management conference 12 and a continuance of the ADR Deadlines (Dkt. No. 15) in view of Symmetricom’s 13 forthcoming motion to dismiss; 14 WHEREAS, on December 16, 2013, the Court entered an Order modifying 15 the date of the initial case management conference to February 12, 2014 at 10:00 16 AM and granted a continuance of the ADR Deadlines (Dkt. No. 16); 17 WHEREAS, on or around December 20, 2013, Symmetricom retained new 18 counsel from the firm of Lee Tran Liang & Wang LLP (Notices of Appearances 19 Dkt. Nos. 17, 19, 20); 20 WHEREAS, on December 24, 2013, the Parties stipulated to a 30-day 21 extension for Symmetricom to file a responsive pleading to the Complaint on or 22 before January 29, 2014 (Dkt. No. 18); 23 WHEREAS, on December 26, 2013, the Court issued an Order continuing the 24 CMC until March 12, 2014 (Dkt. No. 21); 25 WHEREAS, on January 29, 2014, Symmetricom filed a Motion to Dismiss, 26 the Plaintiffs’ opposition to which comes due on February 12, 2014, and which was 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO OPPOSE MOTION TO DISMISS AND CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case No. 3:13-cv-04662 (NC) 1 noticed for motion hearing set for March 19, 2014 (Dkt. No. 25); 2 WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs have requested and received the consent of 3 Symmetricom to stipulate to a fourteen (14) day extension of time within which to 4 file their opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. 5 IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and among the 6 Parties and their respective counsel of record, that: 7 8 1. or before February 26, 2014, and the hearing date for the motion 9 will be continued to April 2, 2014, at 1:00 PM; 10 11 Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the Motion to Dismiss on 2. The initial case management conference in this matter currently 12 scheduled for March 12, 2014, at 3:00 PM shall be continued 13 until after the Court rules on the Motion to Dismiss; 14 3. All other deadlines set forth in the Court’s Order Setting Initial 15 Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines be continued 16 accordingly. 17 18 Dated: February 8, 2014 ROSS BABBITT CO LPA 19 20 21 22 23 By: /s/ Ross M. Babbitt Ross M. Babbitt (pro hac vice) 700 West St. Clair Avenue Hoyt Block, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 623-6346 Facsimile: (216) 274-9683 24 MAHANY & ERTL Brian Howard Mahany (pro hac vice) P.O. Box 511328 Milwaukee, WI 53202 25 26 27 28 3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND DEADLINE TO OPPOSE MOTION TO DISMISS AND CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case No. 3:13-cv-04662 (NC) STEBURG LAW FIRM Anita L. Steburg, Bar No. 245933 1798 Technology Drive, Suite 258 San Jose, CA 95110 1 2 3 Attorneys for Plaintiffs TODD S. GLASSEY and MICHAEL E. MCNEIL 4 5 6 7 Dated: February 8, 2014 LEE TRAN LIANG & WANG LLP 8 9 10 11 12 13 By: /s/ Heather F. Auyang Enoch H. Liang, Bar No. 212324 Heather F. Auyang, Bar, No. 191776 Lisa J. Chin, Bar No. 259793 601 South Gateway Blvd., Suite 1010 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Telephone: (650) 241-2140 Facsimile: (213) 612-3773 Attorneys for Defendant SYMMETRICOM, INC. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Case Management Conference is continued to April 23, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. ISTRIC February 10 22 Dated: ______________________, 2014 _________________________________ ES D T T RT 28 4 ER H 27 than Judge Na ael M. Co usins R NIA NO 26 FO 25 TED GRAN LI 24 A UNIT ED S 23 RT U O C The Honorable Nathanael Cousins TA Magistrate Judge C N AND F STIPULATION D [PROPOSED] ORDER TO I S T RTO T O I C OPPOSE MOTION EXTEND DEADLINE TO DISMISS AND CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Case No. 3:13-cv-04662 (NC)

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?