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)
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?