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)
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?