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)

Download PDF
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?