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)
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?