VIA Technologies, Inc. v. SONICBlue Claims LLC et al

Filing 169

STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING THE COURT'S MARCH 23, 2011 ORDER TO REFLECT THE COURT'S JUNE 17, 2011 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION re 168 Stipulation, filed by Ferry Claims, LLC, Freefall Claims I, LLC. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 6/24/11. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2011)

1

4

JONATHAN R. BASS [075779]
COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
One Ferry Building, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]

5

Attorneys for Defendant SonicBlue Claims, LLC

2
3

6

11

ANTHONY J. TREPEL [032668]
CHRISTOPHER D. SULLIVAN [148083]
MATTHEW R. SCHULTZ [220641]
TREPEL McGRANE GREENFIELD LLP
150 California Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

12

Attorneys for Defendants Ferry Claims, LLC and Freefall Claims I, LLC

7
8
9
10

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

(OAKLAND DIVISION)

16
17

VIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Taiwan
corporation,
Plaintiff,

18
19
20
21
22
23

vs.
SONICBLUE CLAIMS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; FERRY
CLAIMS, LLC, a California limited
liability company; and FREEFALL
CLAIMS I, LLC, a California limited
liability company

Case No.09-cv-02109-PJH
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS’
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER AMENDING
THE COURT’S MARCH 23, 2011
ORDER TO REFLECT THE COURT’S
JUNE 17, 2011 ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. § 1292(b)

Defendants.

24
1
Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re: Amendment of March 23 Order

1

WHEREAS, in an order filed June 17, 2011 (Docket No. 167), the Court

2

granted Defendants’ joint motion for an order certifying for interlocutory review

3

of the Court’s order dated March 23, 2011 (Docket No. 153);

4

WHEREAS, Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides

5

that where certification is obtained after an order has been issued, “the district

6

court may amend its order, either on its own or in response to a party’s motion, to

7

include the required permission or statement” (Fed. R. App. P. 5(a)(3);1

8
9
10

WHEREAS, in the interest of judicial economy, Plaintiff and Defendants
have agreed to stipulate to the [Proposed] Order set forth below to reflect this
certification;

11

WHEREAS, in the interest of judicial economy, Plaintiff and Defendants

12

have agreed that the 10-day period within which to apply to the Ninth Circuit for

13

permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. section 1292(b) will run from the date of the

14

Court’s June 17, 2011 Order, rather than the date the Court were to adopt the

15

[Proposed] Order set forth below;

16

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendants have agreed that nothing in this

17

stipulation shall operate as a waiver of any kind by Plaintiff as to any arguments

18

Plaintiff may have against the suitability for interlocutory appeal of the March 23,

19

2011 Order or on the merits of any such appeal;

20
21
22
23
24

1

See also 19 JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE, ¶ 203.32
(Matthew Bender 2011) (“On occasion a district court may grant a request to
certify an order after it has issued its order on the merits in the action. In this
situation it appears that the court must issue an amended order that includes the
certification rather than merely issuing a supplemental order adding only the
certification.”).
2
Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re: Amendment of March 23 Order

1

Plaintiff VIA Technologies, Inc. and Defendants SonicBlue Claims, LLC,

2

Ferry Claims, LLC, and Freefall Claims I, LLC hereby agree and stipulate to the

3

below [Proposed] Order Amending the Court’s March 23, 2011 Order.

4
5

DATED: June 22, 2011

6

TREPEL MCGRANE GREENFIELD LLP
By: /s/ Matthew R. Schultz
Matthew R. Schultz
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
FERRY CLAIMS, LLC AND
FREEFALL CLAIMS I, LLC

7
8
9
10

DATED: June 22, 2011

COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP

11
By: /s/Jonathan R. Bass
Jonathan R. Bass
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
SONIC BLUE CLAIMS, LLC

12
13
14
15
DATED: June 22, 2011

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

16
17
18
19

By: /s/ Douglas L. Hendricks______________
Douglas L. Hendricks
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF VIA
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

20
21
22
23
24
3
Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re: Amendment of March 23 Order

1
[PROPOSED] ORDER

2
3

In light of the Court’s Order Granting Request For Certification Of Order

4

For Interlocutory Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) dated June 17, 2011

5

and the parties’ joint stipulation to this [Proposed] Order, the Court hereby

6

ORDERS that the Court’s Order dated March 23, 2011 (Docket No. 153) shall be

7

AMENDED at page 36, line 17, to include the text (including footnote) from the

8

Court’s Order dated June 17, 2011 at page 3, lines 01 – 10.

9

J

ER

17

n

Hamilto

A

H

16

R NIA

S

RT

15

yllis J.
udge Ph

NO

14

FO

13

LI

12

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
DERED
SO OR
IT IS

RT
U
O

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated: June __, 2011

UNIT
ED

10

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
4
Joint Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re: Amendment of March 23 Order