Levi Strauss & Co., v. Aqua Dynamics Systems, Inc.

Filing 104

ORDER granting 102 , 103 STIPULATION AMENDING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE re 101 MOTION to Confirm Arbitration Award. Responses due by 6/12/2020. Replies due by 6/26/2020. Motion Hearing reset for 7/15/2020 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 02, 17th Floor before Judge William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 05/26/2020. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2020)

Download PDF
1 BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP Eric M. George (State Bar No. 166403) egeorge@bgrfirm.com 2 James L. Michaels (State Bar No. 298130) jmichaels@bgrfirm.com 3 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800 4 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 274-7100 5 Facsimile: (310) 275-5697 6 Attorneys for Defendant, AQUA DYNAMICS SYSTEMS, INC. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 10 11 LEVI STRAUSS & CO., Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 14 AQUA DYNAMICS SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant. 15 16 Case No. 3:15-04718-WHO The Hon. William H. Orrick JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF LEVI STRAUSS & CO.’S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD 19 Filed Concurrently with [PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF LEVI STRAUSS & CO.’S MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD 20 Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick 21 Trial Date: None Set 17 18 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1565679.1 Case No. 3:15-04718-WHO STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE WHEREAS, on May 15, plaintiff Levi Strauss & Co. (“Levi’s”) filed a 1 2 motion to confirm an arbitration award (ECF No. 101); WHEREAS, defendant Aqua Dynamics Systems, Inc. (“Aqua”) intends to 3 4 oppose such motion; 5 WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(a), the natural deadline for Aqua to 6 file its opposition to Levi’s motion is May 29, 2020; WHEREAS, pursuant to Local Rule 7-3(c), the natural deadline for Levi’s to 7 8 file its reply brief is June 5, 2020; 9 WHEREAS, the motion is presently set for hearing on June 24, 2020; WHEREAS, Aqua requested, and Levi’s agreed to, a modest extension in 10 11 view of challenges created by current stay-at-home orders and other scheduling 12 conflicts; 13 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate and agree to the following 14 amended briefing and hearing schedule on Levi’s motion: 15 1. Aqua shall file its opposition brief on or before June 12, 2020 instead 16 of May 29, 2020; 17 2. Levi’s shall file its reply brief on or before June 26, 2020 instead of 18 June 5, 2020; and 19 3. The hearing on Levi’s motion shall proceed on July 15, 2020, or as 20 soon thereafter as it may be heard by the Court, instead of June 24, 2020. 21 22 IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED. 23 24 25 26 27 28 1565679.1 Case No. 3:15-04718-WHO -1STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE 1 DATED: May 22, 2020 2 BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP Eric M. George James L. Michaels 3 4 By: /s/ James L. Michaels James L. Michaels Attorneys for Defendant, AQUA DYNAMICS SYSTEMS, INC. 5 6 7 8 DATED: May 22, 2020 9 10 HANSON BRIDGETT LLP Robert A. McFarlane Janie L. Thompson Rosanna W. Gan 11 By: /s/ Robert A. McFarlane Robert A. McFarlane Attorneys for Plaintiff, LEVI STRAUSS & CO. 12 13 14 15 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 DATED: May 26, 2020 By: Hon. William H. Orrick United States District Court Judge 17 18 19 ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3) 20 21 22 23 I, James Michaels, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file this stipulation. In compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that all other signatories listed on whose behalf the filing is submitted concur in the filing’s content and have authorized the filing. 24 25 DATED: May 22, 2020 26 /s/ James L. Michaels James L. Michaels 27 28 1565679.1 Case No. 3:15-04718-WHO -2STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE

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?