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)

Download PDF
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?