Lenovo (Singapore) PTE, Ltd. v. Shuttle, Inc. et al

Filing 23

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND CMC AND ADR DEADLINES (approving docket no. 22 ). Case Management Conference set for 12/5/2008 10:30 AM. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 10/22/08. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2008)

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

**E-Filed 10/22/08** DANIEL S. MOUNT (Cal. Bar No. 77517) ON LU (Cal. Bar No. 242693) KEVIN M. PASQUINELLI (Cal. Bar No. 246985) MOUNT & STOELKER, P.C. RiverPark Tower, Suite 1650 333 West San Carlos Street San Jose CA 95110-2740 Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants, SHUTTLE INC. and SHUTTLE COMPUTER GROUP INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LENOVO (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., Plaintiff, v. SHUTTLE INC. and SHUTTLE COMPUTER GROUP INC., Defendants. Case No. 5:08-CV-3454 (JF) -----------------STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND CMC AND ADR DEADLINES HON. JUDGE JEREMY FOGEL U.S. District Court Judge

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No. 5:08-CV-3454 (JF)

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

Pursuant to Civil L.Rs. 6-2 and 7-12, Plaintiff LENOVO (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD. ("Plaintiff"), and Defendants SHUTTLE INC. and SHUTTLE COMPUTER GROUP INC. (together "Defendants"), respectfully request the Court to enter an Order extending the Parties' CMC and ADR deadlines. In support of this Stipulation, the Parties state as follows: 1. 2. 3. On July 17, 2008, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in the Northern District of California. On Aug. 18, 2008, this case was reassigned to Judge Fogel. On Sep. 26, 2008, the Parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order enlarging

Defendants' time to reply to Plaintiff's Complaint to Dec. 1, 2008. Judge Fogel granted this request on Oct. 10, 2008. 4. On Sep. 30, 2008, before the extension was granted by Judge Fogel, the Court noticed

the CMC for Oct. 31, 2008. As a result, the CMC is scheduled to occur before Defendants' reply is due on Dec. 1, 2008. Defendants may file a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in reply to Plaintiff's Complaint. Therefore, Defendants suggest that a CMC before Judge Fogel would not be appropriate until after Defendants file their reply. 5. The Parties therefore stipulate that the CMC should occur after Defendants reply to

Plaintiff's Complaint. The parties respectfully submit that either December 5 would be an appropriate date for the CMC, if the Court's schedule permits. If December 5 is not available, the parties request a setting on December 12 or as soon thereafter as the Court will permit. 6. This stipulation expresses the intent and understanding of both parties.

FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, the parties respectfully request the Court to enter an Order extending the Parties' CMC and ADR deadlines as follows: 7. Friday, Nov. 14, 2008: Last day to: a. Meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection; and discovery plan; b. File ADR Certification signed by Parties and Counsel;

1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 5:08-CV-3454 (JF)

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

c. File either Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference. 8. Wednesday, November 26, 2008: Last day to file Rule 26(f) report; complete initial disclosures or state objections; and file CMC Statement. 9. Friday, Dec. 5, 2008: Initial CMC.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 21, 2008

MOUNT & STOELKER, P.C. By: /s/ On Lu

DANIEL S. MOUNT ON LU KEVIN M. PASQUINELLI Attorneys for Defendants SHUTTLE INC. and SHUTTLE COMPUTER GROUP INC.

Dated: October 21, 2008

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP By: /s/ Fred I. Williams

FRED I. WILLIAMS Attorney for Plaintiff LENOVO (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

10/22/08 Dated:___________________

_________________ HON. JUDGE JEREMY FOGEL United States District Court Judge Northern District of California

2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 5:08-CV-3454 (JF)

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

As the attorney e-filing this document, I hereby attest that Fred I. Williams, attorney for Lenovo (Singapore) PTE. Ltd. has concurred in this filing.

Dated: October 21, 2008

MOUNT & STOELKER, P.C. By: /s/ On Lu

ON LU Attorney for Defendants SHUTTLE INC. and SHUTTLE COMPUTER GROUP INC.

3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. 5:08-CV-3454 (JF)