Apple Inc. v. BYD Company Limited et al

Filing 51

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER 50 TO CONTINUE HEARING ON APPLE'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND BYD COMPANY LIMITED'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 1/25/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP Harrison J. Frahn IV (CA Bar No. 206822) hfrahn@stblaw.com 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 251-5000 Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP Peter C. Thomas (pro hac vice) pthomas@stblaw.com Janet M. Whittaker (pro hac vice) janet.whittaker@stblaw.com 900 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 636-5500 Facsimile: (202) 636-5502 Attorneys for Petitioner Apple Inc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12 13 14 APPLE INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-04985-RS 15 Petitioner, 16 vs. 17 18 19 BYD PRECISION MANUFACTURING CO., LTD. AND BYD COMPANY LIMITED, Respondents. JOINT STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND BYD COMPANY LIMITED’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION; and 20 [PROPOSED] ORDER 21 Hon. Richard Seeborg Courtroom: 3, 17th Floor 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT STIP. TO CONTINUE MTCA & MTD HEARING CASE NO. 3:15-CV-04985-RS 1 Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Respondents BYD Precision Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 2 (“Precision”) and BYD Company Limited (“Limited” and, together with Precision, 3 “Respondents”) jointly stipulate, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b), 6-2, and 7-12, to continue 4 the hearing on Apple’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 3) 5 (the “MTCA”) and Limited’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (Dkt. 34) (the 6 “MTD”), currently set for January 28, 2016. 7 WHEREAS, on November 16, 2015, Apple filed a motion with this Court to (1) extend 8 the deadline for any opposition to the MTCA from November 17, 2015 to November 24, 2015, 9 and (2) extend the deadline for any reply in support of the MTCA from November 24, 2015 to 10 11 12 13 December 1, 2015 (Dkt. 24); WHEREAS, this Court granted Apple’s motion to extend time, and rescheduled the hearing on the MTCA for December 17, 2015 (Dkt. 25); WHEREAS, on November 23, 2015, Apple and Respondents filed a joint stipulation with 14 this Court to (1) extend the deadline for any opposition to the MTCA from November 24, 2015 15 to December 8, 2015, (2) extend the deadline for any response to Apple’s Petition for Order 16 Compelling Arbitration and for Injunctive Relief Pending Arbitration from November 24, 2015 17 to December 8, 2015, (3) extend the deadline for any reply in support of the MTCA from 18 December 1, 2015 to December 22, 2015, and (4) continue the hearing on the MTCA from 19 December 17, 2015 to January 14, 2016 (Dkt. 26); 20 21 22 WHEREAS, this Court granted the parties’ November 23, 2015 joint stipulation to extend time without revision (Dkt. 27); WHEREAS, on December 21, 2015 Apple and Respondents filed a joint stipulation with 23 this Court to (1) extend the deadline for any reply in support of the MTCA from December 22, 24 2015 to January 4, 2016, (2) extend the deadline for any opposition to the MTD from December 25 22, 2015 to January 4, 2016, (3) extend the deadline for any reply in support of the MTD from 26 December 29, 2015 to January 14, 2016, and (4) continue the hearing on the MTCA and MTD 27 from January 14, 2016 to January 28, 2016 (Dkt. 39); 28 1 JOINT STIP. TO CONTINUE MTCA & MTD HEARING CASE NO. 3:15-CV-04985-RS 1 2 WHEREAS, this Court granted the parties’ December 21, 2015 joint stipulation to extend time without revision (Dkt. 41); 3 WHEREAS, Apple’s lead trial counsel must travel from Washington, D.C. to San 4 Francisco for the Court’s upcoming hearing and the recent major East Coast blizzard will make 5 such travel extremely difficult this week; 6 7 WHEREAS, the presence of Super Bowl 50 in the San Francisco Bay Area will also make such travel inconvenient the following week; and 8 WHEREAS, all parties reserve fully their prior positions in this proceeding; 9 Now therefore, the parties, through the undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate that the 10 hearing on the MTCA and MTD be continued to February 11, 2016 or as soon thereafter as may 11 be convenient to the Court. 12 13 The parties’ proposed time modification would impact the deadlines in this case as follows: 14 Deadline Current Date 15 Hearing on the MTCA and MTD 01/28/2016 Requested Date 02/11/2016 16 17 Dated: January 25, 2016 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 18 By: /s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV Harrison J. Frahn IV 19 20 Attorneys for Petitioner Apple Inc. 21 22 23 SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 24 By: /s/ Lance A. Etcheverry Lance A. Etcheverry 25 Attorneys for Respondents BYD Company Limited and BYD Precision Manufacturing Co., Ltd. 26 27 28 2 JOINT STIP. TO CONTINUE MTCA & MTD HEARING CASE NO. 3:15-CV-04985-RS 1 2 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatories above. 3 /s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV Harrison J. Frahn IV 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 JOINT STIP. TO CONTINUE MTCA & MTD HEARING CASE NO. 3:15-CV-04985-RS [PROPOSED] ORDER 1 2 3 PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 4 the hearing on Apple’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and for Preliminary Injunction and 5 BYD Company Limited’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction be 6 continued from January 28, 2016 to February 11, 2016. 7 8 9 10 DATED: __________________, 2016 1/25 ___________________________________ The Honorable Richard Seeborg United States District Court Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT STIP. TO CONTINUE MTCA & MTD HEARING CASE NO. 3:15-CV-04985-RS

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?