Fortinet, Inc. v. Sophos, Inc. et al

Filing 38

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 36 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Moving Hearing Date on Clark Motion to Dismiss and Valentine Motion to Compel Arbitration and Sophos Motion to Stay from March 13, 2014 to March 27, 2014 filed by Fortinet, Inc., Set/Reset Deadlines as to 36 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Moving Hearing Date on Clark Motion to Dismiss and Valentine Motion to Compel Arbitration and Sophos Motion to Stay from March 13, 2014 to March 27, 2014, 22 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss, 24 MOTION to Compel Arbitration and to Stay Non-Patent Claims Pending Arbitration and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion. Motion Hearing set for 3/27/2014 01:30 PM in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Edward M. Chen.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/28/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2014)

Download PDF
1 JOHN M. NEUKOM (CA Bar No. 275887) johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com 2 ANDREW M. HOLMES (CA Bar No. 260475) drewholmes@quinnemanuel.com 3 ALICIA VEGLIA (CA Bar No. 291070) aliciaveglia@quinnemanuel.com 4 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 5 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 6 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff FORTINET, INC. 8 9 10 11 SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM, Bar No. 174931 sean.cunningham@dlapiper.com KATHRYN RILEY GRASSO, Bar No. 211187 kathryn.riley@dlapiper.com RYAN W. COBB, Bar No. 277608 ryan.cobb@dlapiper.com DAVID R. KNUDSON Bar No. 265461 david.knudson@dlapiper.com DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101-4297 Telephone: 619.699.2700 Facsimile: 619.699.2701 TODD S. PATTERSON, pro hac vice todd.patterson@dlapiper.com DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500 Austin, Texas 78701-3799 Telephone: 512.457.7000 Facsimile: 512.457.7001 Attorneys for Defendants SOPHOS INC., MICHAEL VALENTINE and JASON CLARK (limited appearance) 12 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 15 16 17 FORTINET, INC., a corporation 18 Case No. 3:13-cv-05831-EMC Plaintiff, vs. 19 SOPHOS, INC., a corporation, MICHAEL 20 VALENTINE, an individual, and JASON CLARK, an individual. 21 Defendants. 22 23 SOPHOS INC. and SOPHOS LTD., corporations, 24 Counterclaim Plaintiffs, 25 vs. JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MOVING THE DATE FOR THE HEARING ON CLARK’S MOTION TO DISMISS, VALENTINE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION, AND SOPHOS’ MOTION TO STAY Judge: Honorable Edward M. Chen 26 FORTINET, INC., a corporation, 27 Counterclaim Defendant. 28 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MOVING THE DATE FOR HEARING Case No. 3:13-cv-05831-EMC 1 By and through their respective undersigned counsel, Plaintiff Fortinet, Inc. (“Fortinet”) 2 and Defendants Sophos, Inc. (“Sophos”), Michael Valentine (“Valentine”) and Jason Clark 3 (“Clark”) (collectively, the “Parties”), hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 4 WHEREAS, the date for the hearing on Clark’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 22) and 5 Valentine’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Sophos’ Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 24) are both 6 currently set for Thursday, March 13, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.; 7 WHEREAS, lead counsel for Fortinet is scheduled to be in a jury trial (before the 8 Honorable William H. Alsup, U.S. District Judge) in another, unrelated matter on that same date; 9 and 10 WHEREAS, counsel for Fortinet has requested and counsel for Sophos, Clark and 11 Valentine have agreed, to move the hearing from March 13 to March 27; 12 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the hearing date for Clark’s Motion to 13 Dismiss and Valentine’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Sophos’ Motion to Stay be changed 14 from Thursday, March 13, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. to Thursday, March 27, 2014 at 1:30 p.m., or to any 15 date and time thereafter acceptable to the Court. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 04880.00001/5786241.1 1 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MOVING THE DATE FOR HEARING Case No. 3:13-cv-05831-EMC 1 DATED: February 26, 2014 2 3 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP By /s/ John M. Neukom John M. Neukom (Bar No. 275887) johnneukom@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4788 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 4 5 6 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff FORTINET, INC. 8 9 DATED: February 26, 2014 DLA PIPER LLP (US) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 By /s/ Sean C. Cunningham SEAN C. CUNNINGHAM KATHRYN RILEY GRASSO RYAN W. COBB DAVID R. KNUDSON TODD S. PATTERSON (pro hac vice) Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff SOPHOS INC., Counterclaim Plaintiff SOPHOS LTD. and Defendants MICHAEL VALENTINE and JASON CLARK (limited appearance) 18 19 20 21 SIGNATURE ATTESTATION Pursuant to Local Rule 5.1(i)(3), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the 22 filing of this document has been obtained from Sean C. Cunningham. 23 24 /s/ John M. Neukom John M. Neukom 25 26 27 28 04880.00001/5786241.1 2 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MOVING THE DATE FOR HEARING Case No. 3:13-cv-05831-EMC 1 PROPOSED ORDER 2 3 4 Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Stipulation to move the date of the hearing on Defendant Jason Clark’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 22) and Defendant Michael Valentine’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Defendant Sophos, Inc.’s Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 24) from 5 Thursday, March 13, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. to Thursday, March 27, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. 6 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 S UNIT ED 9 10 DERED OR ____________________________________ T IS SO 2/28/14 I R NIA Dated: RT U O 8 S DISTRICT TE C TA Hon. Edward M. Chen . Chen United States District ward M ge Ed Court Judge Jud 13 14 A H ER LI RT 12 FO NO 11 N F D IS T IC T O R C 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 04880.00001/5786241.1 3 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER MOVING THE DATE FOR HEARING Case No. 3:13-cv-05831-EMC

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?