Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Skyworth Digital Holdings Ltd. et al
Filing
49
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Private ADR. STIPULATION AND ORDER re 40 STIPULATION and Proposed Order selecting Private ADR by Cadence Design Systems, Inc. filed by Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/10/18. (bpfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2018)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
CASE No C 18-CV-02474-EMC
Plaintiff(s)
v.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS
Skyworth Digital Holdings Ltd., et al
Defendant(s)
Counsel report that they have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the following
stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5. The parties agree to participate in the
following ADR process:
Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5)
Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)
Early Settlement Conference with a Magistrate Judge (ADR L.R. 7)
■ Private ADR (specify process and provider) Mediation before a mutually agreeable private
mediator. The parties agree to the presumptive
deadline subject to mediator availability.
The parties agree to hold the ADR session by:
■
the presumptive deadline (90 days from the date of the order referring the case to ADR)
other requested deadline:
FO
RT
H
E
RN
Important! E-file this form in ECF using the appropriate event among these choices: “Stipulation & Proposed F
D I & Proposed
Order Selecting Mediation” or “Stipulation & Proposed Order Selecting ENE” or “StipulationS T R I C T O
Order Selecting Private ADR.”
Form ADR-Stip rev. 5-1-2018
R NIA
n
M. Che
Edward
Judge
U.S. DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE
A
8/10/18
DERED
O OR
IT IS S
NO
Date:
C
LI
IT IS SO ORDERED
IT IS SO ORDERED WITH MODIFICATIONS:
TA
RT
U
O
x
S
Date: August 2, 2018
/s/ Lauren Schweitzer
Attorney for Plaintiff
/s/ Jeremy T. Elman & /s/ Bryan G. Harrison
ISTRIC
Attorneys for Defendants TES D
T
UNIT
ED
Date: August 2, 2018
C
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?