Mysfyt, Inc. v. James Lum
Filing
49
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 48 . STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Stay Proceedings Pending Settlement filed by MYSFYT, Inc., James Lum. Case Management Statement due by 11/14/2017. Further Case Management Conference set for 11/21/2017 01:30 PM in Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor, Oakland. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 10/12/17. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
DOMINIC V. SIGNOROTTI, CA Bar No. 267712
dsignorotti@bpbsllp.com
BUCHMAN PROVINE BROTHERS SMITH LLP
2033 N. Main Street, Suite 720
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Telephone: 925 944 9700
Facsimile: 925 944 9701
Attorneys for Plaintiff
10
OTTO O. LEE, CA Bar No. 173987
olee@iplg.com
KEVIN VIAU, CA Bar No. 275556
kviau@iplg.com
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
12 South First Street, 12th Floor
San Jose, California 95113
Telephone: (408) 286-8933
Facsimile: (408) 286-8932
11
Attorneys for Defendant
7
8
9
12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
OAKLAND DIVISION
15
16
17
MYSFYT, INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,
18
v.
19
Case No.: 16-CV-03813-KAW
STIPULATION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
PENDING SETTLEMENT;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
JAMES LUM, an individual,
20
Defendant/Counterclaimant.
21
22
WHEREAS, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Mysfyt, Inc. (“Plaintiff” and “Mysfyt”) and
23
Defendant/Counterclaimant James Lum (“Defendant” and “Lum”) (collectively the “Parties”) have
24
reached an agreement in principle for a settlement of this action;
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the Parties are continuing the process of finalizing a written settlement
agreement;
WHEREAS, the Parties previously stipulated to stay proceedings for settlement (Dkt. Nos.
38, 40, 42, 44, and 46), and the Court ordered such stays (Dkt. Nos. 39, 41, 43, 45, and 47).
Stipulation to Stay Proceedings Pending Settlement
1
16-CV-03813-KAW
WHEREAS, the Parties require additional time to finalize a full settlement, and anticipate
1
2
the process to finalize settlement will be completed within thirty (30) days and that no further stay
3
will be required;
WHEREAS, the Parties believe full settlement is very imminent, and wish not to burden the
4
5
Court with unnecessary proceedings while the settlement process is completed; and
WHEREAS, a Further Case Management Conference is scheduled to take place on October
6
7
17, 2017 at 1:30pm, with a Further Case Management Statement due October 10, 2017.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and among the
8
9
Parties, through their undersigned counsel, that the action be stayed for an additional period of thirty
10
(30) days pending the finalization of the settlement agreement, and that the Further Case
11
Management Conference scheduled on the Court’s October 17, 2017 calendar be moved to
12
November 21, 2017 with the Further Case Management Statement to be filed by November 14,
13
2017.
14
IT IS SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.
15
Respectfully submitted,
16
17
Dated: October 10, 2017
By: /s/ Otto O. Lee
Otto O. Lee
Kevin Viau
12 South First Street, 12th Floor
San Jose, California 95113
Telephone: (408) 286-8933
Facsimile: (408) 286-8932
18
19
20
21
Attorneys for Defendant
22
23
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP LLP
Dated: October 10, 2017
24
BUCHMAN PROVINE BROTHERS SMITH
LLP
By: /s/ Dominic V. Signorotti
Dominic V. Signorotti
2033 N. Main Street, Suite 720
Walnut Creek, California 94596
Telephone: 925 944 9700
Facsimile: 925 944 9701
25
26
27
28
*
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Stipulation to Stay Proceedings Pending Settlement
2
16-CV-03813-KAW
1
2
* Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), filing counsel attests that all other signatories listed, on whose
behalf the filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s content and have authorized the filing.
3
[PROPOSED] ORDER
4
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
Dated:
10/12/17
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Stipulation to Stay Proceedings Pending Settlement
3
16-CV-03813-KAW
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?