The Wave Studio, LLC v. Amadeus North America, Inc. et al

Filing 25

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT AMADEUS NORTH AMERICA, INC. TO RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT BY NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/12/15. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

NATE A. GARHART (State Bar No. 196872)
[e-mail]
VIJAY K. TOKE (State Bar No. 215079)
[e-mail]
AMANDA R. CONLEY (State Bar No. 281270)
[e-mail]
COBALT LLP
918 Parker Street, Bldg. A21
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8
9
10
11

DUANE H. MATHIOWETZ (State Bar No. 111831)
[e-mail]
PATRICIA L. PEDEN (State Bar No. 206440)
[e-mail]
LECLAIRRYAN LLP
44 Montgomery Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

12
13

Attorneys for Defendant
AMADEUS NORTH AMERICA, INC.

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17
18

THE WAVE STUDIO LLC, a New York Limited
Liability Company,

19

ORDER
Plaintiff,

20
v.
21
22
23
24
25

Case No.: 15-CV-01364-RS

AMADEUS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a
Florida Corporation, CATHAY PACIFIC
AIRWAYS LTD., a Hong Kong Corporation,
KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART
MAATSCHAPPIJ, N.V., a Netherlands Antilles
Corporation d/b/a KLM ROYAL DUTCH
AIRLINES, JOHN LIM, an individual d/b/a
TRAVELS-WEB, PRICELINE.COM LLC, a
Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-100,

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
FOR DEFENDANT AMADEUS
NORTH AMERICA, INC. TO
RESPOND TO INITIAL COMPLAINT
BY NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS
(CIVIL L.R. 5 and 6-1(a))
Complaint filed: March 24, 2015
Complaint served: May 22, 2015
Response due:
June 12, 2015
Response due by
stipulation:
July 13, 2015

26
Defendants.
27
28
1
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT AMADEUS NORTH AMERICA, INC. TO RESPOND
TO INITIAL COMPLAINT BY NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 5 and 6-1(a), it is HEREBY STIPULATED by and between

2

Plaintiff THE WAVE STUDIO, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant AMADEUS NORTH

3

AMERICA, INC. (“Defendant”), that Defendant shall have up to and including July 13, 2015 to

4

answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, including but not limited to a challenge as

5

to service, jurisdiction and/or venue.

6

This is the first extension of time sought by defendant Amadeus North America, Inc. It

7

will provide time for Plaintiff to amend its complaint to identify the correct Amadeus entity.

8

Amadeus does not believe that this extension will affect any other deadline already set by the

9

court as to the named parties or will prejudice any of the named parties.
Respectfully submitted,

10
11

Dated: June 12, 2015

LECLAIRRYAN LLP
/s/ Duane H. Mathiowetz
Duane H. Mathiowetz
Attorneys for Defendant
AMADEUS NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Dated: June 12, 2015

COBALT LLP
/s/ Vijay K. Toke
Vijay K. Toke
Attorneys for Plaintiff
THE WAVE STUDIO, LLC

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated: 6/12/15
The Honorable Richard Seeborg
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANT AMADEUS NORTH AMERICA, INC. TO RESPOND
TO INITIAL COMPLAINT BY NOT MORE THAN 30 DAYS