E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company v. USA Performance Technology, Inc. et al
Filing
80
ORDER APPROVING 79 Status Report and Granting Stipulation to Extend Stay. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on June 23, 2014. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2014)
Case4:11-cv-01665-JSW Document79 Filed06/23/14 Page1 of 3
1
5
GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP
CLEMENT L. GLYNN, Bar No. 57117
MORGAN K. LOPEZ, Bar No. 215513
JONATHAN A. ELDREDGE, Bar No. 238559
One Walnut Creek Center
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 210-2800
Facsimile: (925) 945-1975
6
Attorneys for E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company
2
3
4
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
USA PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY,
INC., PERFORMANCE GROUP (USA),
INC., WALTER LIEW, and JOHN LIU,
16
Defendants.
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:11-cv-01665-JSW
JOINT STATUS REPORT AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
STAY OF ACTION
Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
Hearing Date: None
Pursuant to the Court’s March 25, 2014 Order, Plaintiff E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
18
19
Company (“DuPont”) and defendants Walter Liew and USA Performance Technology, Inc.
20
(collectively “USAPT”) submit this Joint Status Report. The parties request that the stay in this
21
matter set to expire on June 30, 2014, remain in place for an additional 30 days, through July 30,
22
2014.
23
On April 6, 2011, DuPont filed the instant suit. (Docket # 1.) Defendants filed their
24
Substituted Answer and Counterclaim on July 11, 2011. (Docket # 35.) The action was first
25
stayed July 22, 2011. (Docket # 39.)
26
///
27
///
28
///
-1JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING STAY
Case4:11-cv-01665-JSW Document79 Filed06/23/14 Page2 of 3
1
On August 23, 2011, the United States filed United States v. Walter Liew and Christina
2
Liew, No. CR-11-0573-RS. On February 7, 2012, the United States filed a superseding
3
indictment in said action. (Id. at Docket # 64.) On March 12, 2013, the United States filed a
4
Second Superseding Indictment. (Id. at Docket # 269.) On or about January 7, 2014, trial began
5
in the criminal action. On March 5, 2014, the jury returned its verdict, finding Mr. Liew and
6
USAPTI guilty of all counts with which they were charged. (Id. at Docket # 804.)
7
Mr. Liew’s sentencing in the criminal case was scheduled initially to take place on June
8
10, 2014, but was continued to July 10, 2014. (Id. at Docket # 863.) As the Court’s disposition
9
of the restitution issue may affect the further course of this case, the parties request that the stay
10
be extended an additional 30 days, to and including July 30, 2014, at which time the parties will
11
report to the Court regarding their proposals for further proceedings.
12
Dated: June 23, 2014
13
14
15
16
By /s/ Morgan K. Lopez
Attorneys for Plaintiff
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
GLYNN & FINLEY, LLP
CLEMENT L. GLYNN
MORGAN K. LOPEZ
JONATHAN A. ELDREDGE
One Walnut Creek Center
100 Pringle Avenue, Suite 500
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Dated: June 23, 2014
MOUNT SPELMAN & FINGERMAN P.C.
DANIEL S. MOUNT
KEVIN M. PASQUINELLI
RiverPark Tower, Suite 1650
333 West San Carlos Street
San Jose, CA 95110-2740
By /s/ Daniel S. Mount
Attorneys for Defendants USA Performance
Technology, Inc., and Walter Liew
24
25
26
27
28
-2JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING STAY
Case4:11-cv-01665-JSW Document79 Filed06/23/14 Page3 of 3
[PROPOSED] ORDER
1
2
Having read and considered the Joint Status Report,
3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
4
The parties’ request that the stay be extended until July 30, 2014 is hereby GRANTED.
5
Counsel shall submit a joint status report on or before July 23, 2014.
6
7 June ____, 2014
23
8
Honorable Jeffrey S. White
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING STAY
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?