Gofron et al v. Picsel Technologies, Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDER re 30 Granting Stipulation EXTENDING DEFENDANT LESCIP T LIMITED'S TIME TO RESPOND. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 7/26/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2010)

Gofron et al v. Picsel Technologies, Inc. et al

Doc. 31

1 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 2 3 4 5 6
A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations STEVEN B. SACKS, Cal. Bar No. 98875 MARTIN WHITE, Cal. Bar No. 253476 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4109 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415-434-3947 E-Mail: [e-mail] [e-mail]

7 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 8 9 10 11
A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations EDWARD H. TILLINGHAST, III 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 24th Floor New York, New York 10112-2201 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 212-653-8701 E-Mail: [e-mail] ADMINISTRATORS OF LESCIP T. LIMITED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-04041-CW [Complaint Filed: August 31, 2009] STIPULATION EXTENDING DEFENDANT LESCIP T LIMITED'S TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 6-1(a) Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken Trial Date: None Set

12 Attorneys for Defendant 13 14 15 16

17 CARRIE GOFRON, J. WILLIAM VANKE,
ASHWINI KUMAR, MATTHEW MIXON, 18 AND DULCE GONZALEZ,

19 20
v.

Plaintiffs,

21 PICSEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., LESCIP T
LIMITED (formerly PICSEL 22 TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED), HAMSARD LIMITED, MASOOD JABBAR AND 23 IMRAN KHAND,

24 25 26 27 28

Defendants.

W02-EAST:7BXL1\200321919.1

Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-04041-CW

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 action; 3

WHEREAS on August 31, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint in this

WHEREAS on May 21, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint,

4 pursuant to which they, inter alia, added defendant LESCIP T. LIMITED ("Lescip") to the 5 action; 6
WHEREAS Lescip is a UK-based company that entered into administration (the

7 "Administration") on July 15, 2009, and John Bruce Cartwright and Graham Frost were appointed 8 Joint Administrators of Lescip (the "Administrators"); 9
WHEREAS on June 16, 2010, the Administrators were allegedly served with the

10 First Amended Complaint; 11
WHEREAS if service were deemed proper, the due date for the Administrators of

12 Lescip to plead, answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint would have been on 13 or about July 7, 2010; 14
WHEREAS on July 7, 2010, the parties agreed to extend the time for the

15 Administrators of Lescip to respond to the First Amended Complaint through August 3, 2010; 16
WHEREAS on July 12, 2010, the parties filed the Stipulation Extending Defendant

17 Lescip T Limited's Time to Respond to Complaint Pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), which Magistrate 18 Judge Edward M. Chen so ordered on July 13, 2010; 19
WHEREAS the Administrators of Lescip require additional time to evaluate the

20 First Amended Complaint and plead, answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended 21 Complaint; 22
WHEREAS the parties believe and agreed on July 21, 2010, that it is prudent,

23 desirable and efficient to further extend the time for the Administrators of Lescip to respond to the 24 First Amended Complaint; 25
WHEREAS an extension of time until Tuesday, August 17, 2010 for the

26 Administrators of Lescip to plead, answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint 27 will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court order in this action; 28
W02-EAST:7BXL1\200321919.1

-1-

Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-04041-CW

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

1

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Local Rule 6-1(a), it is hereby stipulated and

2 agreed by and between Plaintiffs and the Administrators of Lescip that: 3
The Administrators of Lescip shall have through to and including Tuesday, August

4 17, 2010 to plead, answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint in this action. 5
This stipulation is entered into without waiver of any and all defenses available to

6 the Administrators of Lescip, including without limitation, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper 7 service and that commencing this action against Lescip is a violation of the moratorium in the 8 Administration, and is not a concession that service has been effected on Lescip or the 9 Administrators of Lescip. 10
IT IS SO STIPULATED

11 Dated: July 22, 2010 12 13 14 15
Attorneys for Defendant By /s/ Steven B. Sacks STEVEN B. SACKS SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

16 17 Dated: July 22, 2010 18 19 20
By ISTRIC ES D TC T TA

LESCIP T. LIMITED

CRAIG A. MARR, ATTORNEY AT LAW

S

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

/s/ Craig A. Marr CRAIG A. MARR Attorney for Plaintiffs

RT U O

UNIT ED

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

A

C

LI

FO

laud Judge C

ia Wilk

en

R NIA
-2-

OO IT IS S

RDERE

D

W02-EAST:7BXL1\200321919.1

Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-04041-CW

NO

RT
H

STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT