Cheetah Mobile, Inc. et al v. APUS Group

Filing 65

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 64 Stipulation Modifying Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Keith Slenkovich (CA Bar No. 129793)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
Vinita Ferrera (pro hac vice motion to be filed)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cheetah Mobile Inc.,
Cheetah Mobile America, Inc., and
Cheetah Technology Corporation Limited

11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

CHEETAH MOBILE INC.,

Case No. 3:15-cv-02363 HSG

15

CHEETAH MOBILE AMERICA, INC.,

16

CHEETAH TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
LIMITED

17
Plaintiffs,
18

JOINT STATEMENT
REGARDING STATUS OF
SERVICE AND STIPULATION
REGARDING BRIEFING AND
HEARING DATES FOR
PARTIES’ MOTIONS

vs.
19
APUS GROUP,
20
Defendant.
21
22
23
24
25
26

The parties submit this joint filing for two reasons. First, pursuant to the October 21,
2015 order (Dkt. 57), Plaintiffs Cheetah Mobile Inc., Cheetah Mobile America, and Cheetah
Technology Corporation Limited (“Cheetah Mobile”) and Defendant APUS Group (“APUS”)
jointly submit this statement regarding the status of service of the Complaint, Summons, and
other required papers on APUS in the above-captioned action.
27
28
Joint Statement Regarding Status of Service and Stipulation Regarding Briefing and Hearing Dates
Case No. 3:15-cv-02363 HSG
-1-

Second, Cheetah Mobile has filed a Motion to Serve Defendant by Alternative Means

1
2

(Dkt. 58-63) and APUS intends to file a Cross-Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Service. The

3

parties propose below a stipulated briefing schedule for those two motions. Relatedly, the Court

4

has currently scheduled a 2:00 p.m. hearing on March 31, 2016 for a “further hearing on

5

Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. 24].” See Dkt. 57 at 2-3. The parties jointly request that

6

this March 31 hearing instead be used to address the parties’ motions relating to service, and that

7

the Court and parties address at that time whether and when to conduct any “further hearing on

8

Defendant’s motion to dismiss [Dkt. 24].” This request is also addressed in the below proposed

9

stipulated schedule.

10

I.

The Court’s October 21, 2015 Order Quashing Service and Granting Stipulation states:

11
12

The Court QUASHES service and EXTENDS Plaintiffs’
deadline to properly effectuate service to February 15, 2016.
Within five days of the date service is completed or the deadline to
complete service, whichever comes first, the parties shall file a
joint statement notifying the Court of the status of service.
Additionally, the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulation [Dkt. 56]
and sets a further hearing on Defendant’s motion to dismiss on
March 31, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco. The parties shall meet and
confer and file supplemental briefs in accordance with the schedule
laid out in their stipulation.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

STATUS OF SERVICE ON APUS

(Dkt. 57 at 2-3.)

21

While Cheetah Mobile has taken efforts to serve APUS in China via the Hague

22

Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or

23

Commercial Matters, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638 (1969) (“Hague Convention”), those

24

efforts have not to date been successful. On December 15, 2015, Cheetah Mobile received a

25

formal Certificate of Non-Service from the Chinese Ministry of Justice dated November 16,

26

2015, confirming that the Chinese Central Authority had attempted but failed to effect service on

27

APUS.

28
Joint Statement Regarding Status of Service and Stipulation Regarding Briefing and Hearing Dates
Case No. 3:15-cv-02363 HSG
-2-

Since then counsel for the parties conferred but were unable to agree on an alternative

1
2

method of service on APUS. Cheetah Mobile’s position as to those efforts is stated in its Motion

3

to Serve Defendant by Alternative Means (Dkt. 58-63). APUS will state its position in its

4

opposition and Cross-Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Service, which will be filed pursuant to the

5

below schedule, subject to Court approval.

6

II.

PROPOSED SCHEDULING

7

Beginning February 11, 2016, counsel for the parties have conferred regarding the

8

briefing and hearing schedules for Cheetah Mobile’s motion (Dkt. 63), APUS’ anticipated

9

motion to dismiss for lack of service, and APUS’ pending motion to dismiss (Dkt. 24). As a

10

result of these efforts, the parties have agreed to the following schedule to accommodate the

11

current motion activity, if it is acceptable to the Court. In light of the current motion practice

12

regarding the service issue, it would not make sense for the Court and the parties to address

13

APUS’ previously filed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 24)—which addresses personal jurisdiction,

14

forum non conveniens, and Rule 12(b)(6) issues—until after service is resolved.

15

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, the parties to this action respectfully submit the

16

following Joint Stipulation regarding Briefing and Hearing Dates for Parties’ Motions. The

17

proposed schedule would keep the currently calendared March 31, 2016 hearing date to address

18

the motions regarding service, and would allow the parties and the Court to address at that time

19

whether and when to conduct a hearing on APUS’ previously filed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 24).

20
21

February 25, 2016

22

March 14, 2016

23

March 21, 2016
March 31, 2016

24
25

APUS files its opposition to Cheetah Mobile’s motion
and new cross-motion to dismiss for failure to serve.
Cheetah Mobile files its reply and opposition to APUS’
new cross-motion to dismiss
APUS files its reply for its new cross-motion to dismiss
Consolidated hearing on service motions; case
management conference to address timing for any
remaining pending motions

26
27

Respectfully submitted,

28
Joint Statement Regarding Status of Service and Stipulation Regarding Briefing and Hearing Dates
Case No. 3:15-cv-02363 HSG
-3-

1

Dated: February 19, 2016

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP

2
By: /s/ Keith Slenkovich
Keith Slenkovich (CA Bar No. 129793)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

3
4
5
6
7

Vinita Ferrera (pro hac vice motion to be filed)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Tel. [phone]
Fax [phone]

8
9
10
11

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Cheetah Mobile Inc., Cheetah Mobile
America, Inc., and Cheetah Technology Corporation Limited

12
13
14

Dated: February 19, 2016

15

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
By: /s/Ajay S. Krishnan
Stuart L. Gasner
[e-mail]
Ajay S. Krishnan
[e-mail]
David W. Rizk
[e-mail]
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Tel. [phone]
Fax: [phone]

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), counsel for Plaintiffs has obtained the
24
concurrence of Defendant’s counsel in the filing of this Joint Statement and Stipulation.
25
26
27
28

Dated:

/s/ Keith Slenkovich
Keith Slenkovich
Joint Statement Regarding Status of Service and Stipulation Regarding Briefing and Hearing Dates
Case No. 3:15-cv-02363 HSG
-4-

1
2
3
4

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 19, 2016

________________________________
The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Joint Statement Regarding Status of Service and Stipulation Regarding Briefing and Hearing Dates
Case No. 3:15-cv-02363 HSG
-5-