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: (408) 286-8933
Facsimile: (408) 286-8932
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
pjn@lexanalytica.com
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
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?