Ronpak, Inc. v. Electronics For Imaging, Inc.

Filing 25

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 24 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER for Request for Order Continuing Hearing Date for Defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed by Ronpak, Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 2, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 KENNETH E. KELLER (SBN 71450) kkeller@ksrh.com GARTH A. ROSENGREN (SBN 215732) grosengren@ksrh.com KELLER, SLOAN, ROMAN & HOLLAND LLP 555 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 249-8330 Facsimile: (415) 249-8333 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff RONPAK, INC. 6 7 8 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONPAK, INC., a New Jersey corporation Plaintiff, 12 13 vs. 14 ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC., a Delaware corporation, 15 16 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:14-cv-04058 JST STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Current Hearing Date: December 4, 2014 Requested Hearing Date: January 8, 2015 17 18 19 Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, plaintiff Ronpak, Inc. and defendant Electronics for Imaging, Inc., through their counsel of record, stipulate as follows: 20 WHEREAS: 21 1. On October 27, 2014, defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. That motion is fully 22 briefed and is presently set for hearing on December 4, 2014. 23 2. The parties are actively engaged in settlement negotiations. 24 3. The parties desire to continue the hearing date for defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, by 25 at least thirty (30) days, in order to focus their efforts on settlement negotiations. 26 4. The parties previously stipulated to one extension of time for defendant to respond to 27 28 1 ________________________________________________________________________________ STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO.: 3:14-cv-04058 JST 1 2 3 4 5 the Complaint. 5. The parties do not anticipate that the requested continuance will impact any other date currently set in this matter. 6. As required by Local Rule 6-2(a), plaintiff submits the Declaration of Kenneth E. Keller in support of this stipulation. 6 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to Court 7 approval, that the hearing on defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, currently set for December 4, 2014, 8 shall be continued to January 8, 2015, or the next available hearing date. 9 10 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 11 Date: December 2, 2014 KERR & WAGSTAFFE LLP 12 13 By: ___/s/ Frank Busch__________________ Frank Busch Attorneys for Defendant ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC. 14 15 16 Date: December 2, 2014 KELLER, SLOAN, ROMAN & HOLLAND LLP 17 18 19 By: ___/s/ Kenneth E. Keller________________ Kenneth E. Keller Attorneys for Plaintiff RONPAK, INC. 20 21 22 I hereby attest that I have been authorized by Frank Busch to execute on his behalf this Stipulated Request for Order Continuing Hearing Date for Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss. 23 24 Executed on this 2nd day of December, 2014 at San Francisco, California. 25 26 ______/s/ Kenneth E. Keller______ Kenneth E. Keller 27 28 2 _________________________________________________________________________________ STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO.: 3:14-cv-04058 JST ORDER 1 2 Pursuant to stipulation, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the 3 December 4, 2014 hearing on defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby VACATED and shall be 4 CONTINUED to January 8, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. 5 13 ER R NIA . Ti ga r FO nS J u d ge J o H 12 RT 11 NO 10 THE HON. JON S. TIGAR United States District Court Judge LI 9 DERED SO OR IT IS _______________________________________ A 8 Dated: December __, 2014 2 UNIT ED 7 RT U O S 6 S DISTRICT TE C TA N F D IS T IC T O R C 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 _________________________________________________________________________________ STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NO.: 3:14-cv-04058 JST

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?