IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.

Filing 20

Declaration of Gill Sperlein in Support of 19 Stipulation, filed byIO Group, Inc.. (Related document(s) 19 ) (Sperlein, Dennis) (Filed on 9/21/2006)

Download PDF
IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. Doc. 20 Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 20 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GILL SPERLEIN (172887) THE LAW FIRM OF GILL SPERLEIN 584 Castro Street, Suite 849 San Francisco, California 94114 Telephone: (415) 487-1211 X32 Facsimile: (415) 252-7747 legal@titanmedia.com Attorney for Plaintiff IO GROUP, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. C-06-3926 (HRL) DECLARATION OF GILL SPERLEIN IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RELATED CASES; AND TO RESET DATES RELATING TO CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. IO GROUP, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, vs. VEOH NETWORKS, Inc, a California Corporation, Defendant. I, GILL SPERLEIN, declare: 1. I am an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of California and attorney of record for Plaintiff Io Group, Inc. 2. On behalf of Plaintiff Io Group, Inc. I filed in the Northern District of California actions against Veoh Networks, Inc. on June 23, 2006 (C-06-3926 (HRL)); against Data Conversions, Inc. on August 23, 2006 (C-06-5162 (HRL)); and against Webnovas Technologies, Inc., and Gonetmarket, Inc., a Nevada Corporation on August 30, 2006 (C-06-5334 (JSW). -1SPERLEIN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION C-06-3926 (HRL) Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 20 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3. On September 11, 2006 I filed a Notice of Related Cases in the form of a Motion for Administrative Relief seeking to relate these three cases. 4. On September 12, 2006, parties stipulated to extend to September 25, 2006, the deadline for Veoh Networks to answer or otherwise respond to Io Group, Inc.'s Complaint in the matter of Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh, Networks, Inc., C-06-3926 (HRL) and to allow Veoh Networks until September 25, 2006 to file its response to Plaintiff's Notice of Related Cases referred to in the Stipulation as a Motion to Consolidate. This Court entered an order pursuant to the stipulation on September 14, 2006. 5. On September 18, 2006, parties in the matter of Io Group, Inc. v. Webnovas Technologies, Inc. and Gonetmarket, Inc, C-06-5334 (JSW) stipulated to extend to October 10, 2006, the deadline for Webnovas Technologies to answer or otherwise respond to Io Group, Inc.'s Complaint. That stipulation has been filed with the Court and is awaiting Judge Ware's approval and Order. 6. On September 19, 2006, parties in the matter of Io Group, Inc. v. Webnovas Technologies, Inc. and Gonetmarket, Inc, C-06-5334 (JSW) stipulated to extend to October 10, 2006, the deadline for Gonetmarket, Inc. to answer or otherwise respond to Io Group, Inc.'s Complaint. That stipulation has been filed with the Court and is awaiting Judge Ware's approval and Order. 7. On September 20, 2006, in the matter of Io Group, Inc. v. Data Conversions, Inc, C-06-065162 (HRL), plaintiff Io Group, Inc. granted defendant Data Conversions, Inc. until October, 19, 2006 to file an answer or other responsive pleading. I agreed I would seek a stipulation and an order from this Court staying any ruling on the Motion for Administrative relief until after October 19, 2006 so that Data Conversions would have an opportunity to file an -2SPERLEIN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION C-06-3926 (HRL) Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 20 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 opposition or statement of non-opposition to that motion. Defendant Data Conversions' General Counsel requested this extension because its agent to receive service of process had not informed him of the service of the Summons and Complaint. He did not learn the company had been served until I contacted him by facsimile on September 18, 2006. He was scheduled to leave on a prepaid vacation on September 21, 2006. 8. The stipulation this declaration supports is necessary because based on the above facts, defendants in the potentially related cases will not have sufficient time to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff's Notice of Related Cases until October 19, 2006. 9. Previously the Parties to this matter stipulated and the Court ordered that the initial case management conference be recalendared from September 25 to October 17, 2006 and that defendant's answer or other response to the Complaint and any opposition to the Notice of Related Cases would not be due until September 25, 2006. 10. The effect of the requested time modification would allow parties to know whether the cases were related prior to making decisions on ADR and prior to preparing initial disclosures and preparing for the initial Case Management Conference. Pursuant to the laws of the United States, I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: September 21, 2006 /s/ Gill Sperlein GILL SPERLEIN, Attorney for Plaintiff -3SPERLEIN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION C-06-3926 (HRL) Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 20 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I am over 18 years of age, am employed in the county of San Francisco, at 69 Converse Street, San Francisco, California, 94103. I am readily familiar with the practice of this office for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with United Parcel Service and correspondence is deposited with United Parcel Service that same day in the ordinary course of business. Today I served the attached: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF RELATED CASES; AND TO RESET DATES RELATING TO CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. DECLARATION OF GILL SPERLEIN IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATION by causing a true and correct copy of the above to be placed with United Parcel Service, Second Day Service at San Francisco, California in sealed envelopes with postage prepaid, addressed as follows: In the case of Io Group, Inc. v. Webnovas Technologies, et al., C-06-5334 (JSW) Attorney's for Webnovas Technologies, Inc. and Gonetmarket, Inc. With Courtesy Copy to Judge Ware Richard F. Cauley Wang, Hartman, & Gibbs, PLC 1301 Dove Street, Suite 1050 New Port Beach , CA 92660-2812 In the case of Io Group, Inc. v. Data Conversions., C-06-5162 (HRL) Attorney for Data Conversions Inc. With Courtesy Copy to Judge Lloyd Lance Blundell, General Counsel Data Conversions, Inc. 5300 Old Pineville Road, Suite 158 Charlotte, NC 28217 -1- Case 5:06-cv-03926-HRL Document 20 Filed 09/21/2006 Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on September 21, 2006. /s/ Eric Burford Eric Burford I hereby attest that this is the declaration of Eric Burford and the original with Eric Burford's holographic signature is on file for production for the Court if so ordered, or for inspection upon request by any party. Pursuant to the laws of the United States, I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: September 21, 2006. /s/ Gill Sperlein GILL SPERLEIN, Counsel for Plaintiff Io Group, Inc. -2-

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?