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)

Download PDF
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?