Dropbox, Inc. v. Thru Inc.
Filing
78
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 74 re Waiver of Jury Trial filed by Thru Inc. Bench Trial set for 1/23/2017 08:30 AM before Edward M. Chen. Bench Trial set for 1/24/2017 08:30 AM before Edward M. Chen. Bench Trial set for 1/25/2017 08:30 AM before Edward M. Chen. Bench Trial set for 1/27/2017 08:30 AM before Edward M. Chen. Bench Trial set for 1/30/2017 08:30 AM before Edward M. Chen. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/27/16. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. 168452
JOHN L. SLAFSKY, State Bar No. 195513
KEVIN SPARK, State Bar No. 275146
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304-1050
Telephone: (650) 493-9300
Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
dkramer@wsgr.com
jslafsky@wsgr.com
sbrannen@wsgr.com
7
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff /Counterclaim
Defendant
DROPBOX, INC.
9
IAN K. BOYD, State Bar No. 191434
KATE W. McKNIGHT, State Bar No. 264197
HARVEY SISKIND LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 39th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 354-0100
Facsimile: (415) 391-7124
iboyd@harveysiskind.com
kmcknight@harveysiskind.com
JOHN M. CONE, pro hac vice
FERGUSON, BRASWELL & FRASER, PC
2500 Dallas Parkway #501
Plano, Texas 75093
Telephone: (972) 378-9111
Facsimile: (972) 378-9115
jcone@dallasbusinesslaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant /Counterclaimant
THRU INC.
10
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
DROPBOX, INC., a Delaware corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, )
)
v.
)
)
THRU INC., a Delaware corporation,,
)
)
Defendant/Counterclaimant
)
)
)
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
)
)
Case No. 3:15-CV-01741-EMC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE WAIVER OF JURY
TRIAL
[F.R.C.P. 39(a)(1)]
Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
22
23
Following the Court’s instruction at the June 9, 2016 Case Management Conference
24
(“Conference”), the parties to the above-entitled action hereby jointly submit this
25
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL, pursuant to
26
F.R.C.P. 39 (a)(1).
27
28
As no monetary relief is sought by either party (following Thru, Inc.’s on-the-record
confirmation at the Conference that it seeks only an equitable remedy in this action), and because
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL
-1-
Case No. 3:15-CV-01741-EMC
1
the respective claims and counterclaims do not arise from common law, neither party is entitled
2
to a trial by jury in this matter. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate that trial shall be by the
3
Court.
4
Respectfully submitted,
5
Dated: June 23, 2016
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
6
7
By: /s/ John L. Slafsky
DAVID H. KRAMER
JOHN L. SLAFSKY
KEVIN SPARK
8
9
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant
DROPBOX, INC.
11
12
13
Dated: June 23, 2016
HARVEY SISKIND LLP
14
By: /s/ Ian K. Boyd
IAN K. BOYD
KATE W. McKNIGHT
15
16
FERGUSON, BRASWELL & FRASER, PC
JOHN M. CONE
17
18
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant
THRU INC.
19
20
CERTIFICATION
21
22
I, Ian K. Boyd, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file
23
this STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL. In
24
compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this
25
document has been obtained from all of the signatories.
26
27
Dated: June 23, 2016
/s/ Ian K. Boyd
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL
-2-
Case No. 3:15-CV-01741-EMC
1
Pursuant to stipulation, it is so ORDERED.
S
5
DERED
SO OR Chen
The Honorable IEdward M.
IT S
R NIA
27
Dated: June ___, 2016
UNIT
ED
United States District Judge
dwa
Judge E
ER
H
8
9
FO
RT
7
hen
rd M. C
NO
6
LI
4
RT
U
O
3
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
A
2
ORDER
N
F
D IS T IC T O
R
C
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL
-3-
Case No. 3:15-CV-01741-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?