Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Illinois Union Insurance Company et al
Filing
20
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 19 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND REPLY BRIEFS (DEFENDANT ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANYS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT) filed by Intuitive Surgical, Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 23, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2015)
1 ALLEN RUBY (SBN 47109)
RAOUL D. KENNEDY (SBN 40892)
2 JAMES P. SCHAEFER (SBN 250417)
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
3 525 University Avenue, Suite 1400
Palo Alto, CA 94301
4 Telephone: (650) 470-4500
Facsimile: (650) 470-4570
5 allen.ruby@skadden.com
raoul.kennedy@skadden.com
6 james.schaefer@skadden.com
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff
INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12 INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.,
13
14
CASE NO.: 3:15-cv-4834-JST
Plaintiff,
v.
15 ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Illinois corporation;
16 NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE
CO., a New York corporation,
17
Defendants.
18
19
JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND
TIME TO FILE OPPOSITION AND
REPLY BRIEFS (DEFENDANT
ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE
COMPANY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
COMPLAINT); and
[PROPOSED] ORDER.
Hearing Date:
Time:
Courtroom:
Judge:
February 11, 2016
2:00 p.m.
9, 19th Floor
Hon. Jon S. Tigar
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIP. TO EXTEND TIME RE: ILLINOIS UNION’S MTD
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-4834-JST
1
Plaintiff Intuitive Surgical, Inc. (“Intuitive”) and Defendant Illinois Union Insurance
2 Company (“Illinois Union”) jointly stipulate, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, and 7-12,
3 to extend the time to file any opposition and reply briefs regarding Illinois Union’s Motion to
4 Dismiss Complaint (Dkt. 16) (the “Motion to Dismiss”).
5
WHEREAS, on December 21, 2015, Illinois Union filed its Motion to Dismiss and set the
6 motion for hearing on February 11, 2016;
7
WHEREAS, as currently scheduled, Intuitive’s opposition to Illinois Union’s Motion to
8 Dismiss would be due January 4, 2016 and Illinois Union’s reply would be due January 11, 2016;
9
WHEREAS, given the pending holidays, Intuitive requested a one-week extension to
10 respond to Illinois Union’s Motion to Dismiss, to which Illinois Union agreed;
11
Now therefore, the parties, through the undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:
12
•
that the deadline for filing any opposition to Illinois Union’s Motion to Dismiss be
13 extended to January 11, 2016; and
14
•
that the deadline for filing any reply in support of Illinois Union’s Motion to
15 Dismiss be extended to January 25, 2016.
16 DATED: December 22, 2015
17
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
18
19
By:
20
21
/s/ James Schaefer
Attorneys for Plaintiff
INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC.
COZEN O’CONNOR
22
23
By:
24
/s/ Charles Wheeler
Attorneys for Defendant
ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY
25
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this
26
document has been obtained from the signatories above.
27
/s/ James P. Schaefer
28
JOINT STIP. TO EXTEND TIME RE: ILLINOIS UNION’S MTD
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-4834-JST
1
2
[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS
3 ORDERED THAT:
7
2. the deadline for filing any reply in support of Illinois Union’s Motion to Dismiss be
extended to January 25, 2016.
December 23
10 DATED: __________________, 2015
S
UNIT
ED
9
RT
U
O
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
ERED
O ORD
___________________________________
IT IS S
11
NO
The Honorable Jon. S. Tigar
United States District .CourtaJudge
S Ti g r
12
RT
13
J u d ge J o
14
15
A
H
ER
n
R NIA
6
January 11, 2016; and
FO
5
1. the deadline for filing any opposition to Illinois Union’s Motion to Dismiss be extended to
LI
4
N
D IS T IC T
R
OF
C
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME RE: ILLINOIS UNION’S MTD
771308-LACSR02A - MSW
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-4834-JST
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?