E & E Co., Ltd. v. Light In The Box Limited

Filing 33

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 28 MOTION to Dismiss DEFENDANT LIGHT IN THE BOX LIMITED'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT. Responses due by 8/26/2015. Replies due by 9/2/2015. Hearing set for 9/24/15 at 1:30 p.m.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/19/15. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

CURTIS R. TINGLEY (SBN 112322)
[e-mail]
STEPHEN D. COLLINS (SBN 277482)
[e-mail]
KEVIN W. ISAACSON (SBN 281067)
[e-mail]
TINGLEY LAW GROUP, PC
10 Almaden Boulevard, Suite 430
San Jose, California 95113
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
E & E CO., LTD.

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12
13

E & E CO., LTD., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16

v.
LIGHT IN THE BOX LIMITED, a Hong Kong
corporation,

17

CASE NO. CV15-00069 EMC
STIPULATED REQUEST AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
TIME FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
DISMISS AND FOR DEFENDANT
TO REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant.

18
19

WHEREAS, Plaintiff, E & E Co., Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “E & E”), filed a Complaint in the

20

above-captioned case against Defendant, Light In The Box Limited (“Defendant” or “LITB

21

Limited”), on January 7, 2015, Dkt. No. 1 (“the Complaint”);

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
T INGLEY L AW G ROUP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

WHEREAS, Defendant LITB Limited filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on
August 5, 2015;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is currently due
on August 19, 2015;
WHEREAS, Defendant’s Reply to the Plaintiff’s Opposition is currently due on
August 26, 2015;
WHEREAS, the Court reset the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss from September 10,
25F7DF99.doc

STIPULATED REQUEST RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO. CV15-00069 EMC

1

2015, to September 24, 2015, at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor, San Francisco;

2

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has not yet received a returned Proof of Service from the

3
4

appropriate court in Hong Kong;
WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant conferred and agreed to extend the

5

Plaintiff’s deadline to file an opposition to the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss by seven (7) days

6

and to extend the Defendant’s deadline to file a Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss by

7

seven (7) days;

8

THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant hereby stipulate that:

9

1.

10
11

The deadline to file and serve Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss be reset to August 26, 2015;
2.

The deadline to file and serve Defendant’s Reply in Support of the Motion to

12

Dismiss be reset to September 2, 2015.

13

Dated: August 17, 2015

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

14
15

By: /s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV
Harrison J. Frahn IV
Attorneys for Defendants

16
17

Dated: August 17, 2015

TINGLEY LAW GROUP, PC

18
19

By: /s/ Stephen D. Collins
Stephen D. Collins
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Pursuant to Stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT
ED

23
24

19

. Chen
EdwardeM. Chen M
Edward
Judg
United States District Judge

Dated: August ___, 2015

28
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW

ER

25F7DF99.doc

-2-

A

H

27

FO

RT

26

T INGLEY L AW G ROUP

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

NO

25

S

ORDER

RT
U
O

22

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

R NIA

21

LI

20

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

STIPULATED REQUEST RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO. CV15-00069 EMC