Paravue Corporation v. Heller Ehrman LLP

Filing 27

ORDER, Motions terminated: 25 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Changing Time of Briefing Schedule filed by Paravue Corporation. Appellant Brief due by 2/23/2015. Appellant Reply Brief due by 4/27/2015. Appellee Brief due by 4/13/2015.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 2/11/2015. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/11/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

James V. Weixel (166024)
WEIXEL LAW OFFICE
150 Post Street, Suite 520
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Attorney for Appellant
PARAVUE CORPORATION

7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

PARAVUE CORPORATION,

13
Appellant,

14
15

v.

16
17

HELLER EHRMAN, LLP,

18
Appellee.

19
20
21

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:14-cv-3887 CRB
Hon. Charles R. Breyer
STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER
CHANGING TIME OF BRIEFING
SCHEDULE
ORDER

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, Appellant PARAVUE CORPORATION and Appellee HELLER

22

EHRMAN, LLP, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, stipulate and agree to an

23

extension of the briefing deadlines in this appeal, in the respects stated herein.

24
25
26
27

In support of this stipulation, the undersigned counsel for Appellant, James V. Weixel, states and
declares as follows:
1.

I am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California, and

am a member of the bar of this Court. I am counsel of record in this proceeding for Appellant Paravue

28
1
___________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATED REQUEST AND ORDER CHANGING TIME OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Paravue Corporation v. Heller Ehrman, LLP – No. 3:14-cv-3887 CRB

1

Corporation. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this Declaration and, if called to testify

2

thereto, could and would do so truthfully and competently.

3
4
5

2.

I make this Declaration pursuant to Local Rule 6-2 in support of the parties’ stipulation

for an extension of the briefing schedule in this matter.
3.

By previous agreement of the parties and the order of the Court, Paravue’s opening brief

6

to this Court is due by February 16, 2015, Heller Ehrman’s answering brief is due by April 6, 2015, and

7

Paravue’s reply brief is due by April 20, 2015.

8

4.

On December 19, 2015, Paravue filed a motion for a limited remand of this matter to the

9

bankruptcy court for the purpose of allowing that court to consider and determine Paravue’s motion for

10

reconsideration of the summary judgments granted in Heller Ehrman’s favor on the claims which are the

11

subject of this appeal. The parties agreed to continue the hearing until February 6, 2015. However, the

12

Court, sua sponte, set the hearing for February 20, 2015, which presumably was the Court’s next

13

available hearing date. Briefing on the motion has been completed, with the exception of a corrective

14

supplement (without further argument) that Paravue plans to file no later than the end of business on

15

Monday, February 9, 2015.

16

5.

The parties had originally agreed to the above hearing and briefing schedule in part

17

because the motion for limited remand would have been heard before the appellate briefing commenced.

18

However, the Court’s setting of the hearing on the motion for limited remand for February 20th resulted

19

in that motion being scheduled for hearing after Paravue’s opening appellate brief is due to be filed on

20

February 16th, which is in the reverse order agreed upon by the parties in the previous stipulation.

21

Accordingly, on February 6, 2015, I contacted Heller Ehrman’s counsel, Marjorie E. Manning, Esq., to

22

propose an extension of all deadlines in the appellate briefing schedule. Ms. Manning advised me it is

23

her position the outcome of the February 20th hearing on the motion to remand will not alter the nature

24

or scope of the appeal before this Court and thus provides no basis for an additional extension of time to

25

file Paravue’s opening brief. However, she agreed to stipulate to a one-week extension of the existing

26

deadlines in the interest of professional cooperation and courtesy.

27
28

6.

As stated in the stipulation below, the parties have stipulated and agreed to the following

revised briefing schedule as appropriate and reasonable:
2
___________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATED REQUEST AND ORDER CHANGING TIME OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Paravue Corporation v. Heller Ehrman, LLP – No. 3:14-cv-3887 CRB

1

Appellant’s opening brief due:

February 23, 2015

2

Appellee’s brief due:

April 13, 2015

3

Appellant’s reply brief due:

April 27, 2015

4
5

7.

in the current briefing schedule reflected in the Court’s order filed January 7, 2015 (Doc. 22).

6
7

8.

10

The requested extension would cause the briefing schedule in this matter to be extended

by one week with respect to all deadlines, as set forth above.

8
9

There have been three stipulations for an extended briefing schedule, which have resulted

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United
States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 9th day of February, 2015, at San
Francisco, California.

11
12
____________/s/ James V. Weixel___________________
James V. Weixel

13
14
15

STIPULATION

16

Appellant Paravue Corporation and Appellee Heller Ehrman, LLP, by and through their

17

respective undersigned counsel, stipulate and agree, and thereupon request that the Court enter an order

18

accordingly, to change time to reflect an extension of the briefing schedule in the appeal before this

19

Court as follows:

20

Appellant’s opening brief due:

February 23, 2015

21

Appellee’s brief due:

April 13, 2015

22

Appellant’s reply brief due:

April 27, 2015

23
24

This stipulation is made upon the declaration of James V. Weixel, Esq., counsel for Paravue
Corporation in this proceeding, as stated supra.
The parties stipulate and agree to this briefing schedule and request that the Court enter an order

25
26

accordingly, pursuant to Local Rules 6-2 and 7-12.

27

///

28

///
3
___________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATED REQUEST AND ORDER CHANGING TIME OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Paravue Corporation v. Heller Ehrman, LLP – No. 3:14-cv-3887 CRB

1

Dated: February 9, 2015.

WEIXEL LAW OFFICE

2
3
By:
4
5

/s/ James V. Weixel___________________
James V. Weixel
Attorney for Appellant
PARAVUE CORPORATION

6
7
8

Dated: February 9, 2015.

BOLLING & GAWTHROP

9
10
11

By:

/s/ Marjorie E. Manning___________________
Marjorie E. Manning (by consent)

12

Attorney for the Post-Confirmation Liquidating Debtor,
Appellee HELLER EHRMAN, LLP

13
14
15
16

ATTESTATION RE ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE(S)
I, James V. Weixel, counsel for Appellant Paravue Corporation, hereby attest pursuant to Local

17

Rule 5-1(i)(3) that the electronic signature(s) of other counsel and/or parties appearing above indicate(s)

18

that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of said counsel and/or

19

parties, and that such electronic signature(s) serve(s) in lieu of said signature(s) on the document.

20

Dated: February 9, 2015.

WEIXEL LAW OFFICE

21
22
23
24

By:

/s/ James V. Weixel___________________
James V. Weixel
Attorney for Appellant
PARAVUE CORPORATION

25
26
27
28
4
___________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATED REQUEST AND ORDER CHANGING TIME OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Paravue Corporation v. Heller Ehrman, LLP – No. 3:14-cv-3887 CRB

1

ORDER

2
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
4

S

8

12

ER

LI

har
Judge C

A

H

11

RT

10

reyer

les R. B

NO

9

R NIA

Signed: February 11, 2015

D

________________________________________
RDERE
S BREYER
ISR.O O
CHARLES
IT
Senior United States District Judge

FO

7

UNIT
ED

6

RT
U
O

5

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
___________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATED REQUEST AND ORDER CHANGING TIME OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Paravue Corporation v. Heller Ehrman, LLP – No. 3:14-cv-3887 CRB