PQ Labs, Inc. et al v. Qi et al

Filing 83

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 82 Stipulation to Revise Briefing Schedule re 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2013)

4

Otto O. Lee, Esq., SB#173987
Kevin Viau, Esq., SB# 275556
Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
12 South First Street, Twelfth Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5

Attorneys for Plaintiff PQ Labs, Inc.

1
2
3

6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

PQ LABS, INC.
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

CASE NO. 12-CV-00450-CW

v.
YANG QI, ZAAGTECH, INC.,
JINPENG LI, AND HAIPENG LI.

STIPULATION TO REVISE BRIEFING
SCHEDULE FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT HEARING SET FOR
DECEMBER 5, 2013; ORDER

13
Defendants.
14
15
16

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, Plaintiff PQ Labs, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants

17

Zaagtech, Inc., Haipeng Li, Jinpeng Li and Yang Qi (collectively “Defendants”) submit the

18

following Stipulation and Request slightly altering the briefing schedule for the Summary

19

Judgment Motion brought by Defendants set for hearing on December 5, 2013.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Whereas: the Court’s initial case management ruling set December 5, 2013 as the last
date for hearing on a motion for summary judgment;
Whereas: Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment at 11:59 p.m. on
October 30, 2013;
Whereas: the docket text indicates Plaintiff’s response is due November 13, 2013 and
any reply is due by November 20, 2013:
Whereas: Defendants’ memorandum of points and authorities is twenty-five (25)
pages long;

28
STIPULATION TO REVISE BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING 1

Whereas: Plaintiff’s counsel is working diligently in preparing the opposition but is

1
2

handicapped by the length of the moving papers and the location of the Plaintiff in China.

3

Now therefore, the parties agree as follows:

4

1.

Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is due by

5

November 14, 2013; Defendants’ reply is due by November 21, 2013 and the hearing will

6

remain scheduled for December 5, 2013.

7
8

Pursuant to Civil LR 5-1(i)(3), the filer hereby attests that concurrence in the filing of this

9

document has been obtained from each signatory below as indicated by “/s/”.

10
Intellectual Property Law Group LLP

LEXANALYTICA, PC

By: /s/ Otto Lee
Otto O. Lee

By: /s/ Perry Narancic
Perry J. Narancic

15

Counsel for Plaintiff

Counsel for Defendants

16

Dated: November 11, 2013

Dated: November 11, 2013

11
12
13
14

17
18

ORDER

19

Based upon the stipulation of counsel, the Court hereby orders as follows:

20

The motion for summary judgment shall remain on calendar for December 5, 2013.

21

Plaintiff’s response is due by November 14, 2013 and Defendants’ reply is due by

22

November 21, 2013.

23

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

24
25
26

Dated:

11/13/2013

HON. CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

27
28
STIPULATION TO REVISE BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING 2

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on November 13, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing STIPULATION TO

3

REVISE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING SET FOR

4

DECEMBER 5, 2013; [PROPOSED] ORDER using the CM/ECF system, which will provide

5

notice by email to the following parties:

6

8

Perry J. Narancic, Esq.
LEXANALYTICA, PC
1730 S El Camino Real, Suite 270
San Mateo, CA 94402
[e-mail]

9

Attorney for Defendants Yang Qi, ZaagTech Inc., Jinpeng Li, and Haipeng Li

7

10
11
12
13

By: /s/ Otto Lee
Otto Lee

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO REVISE BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING 3