Tokyo Electron Limited v. Spansion, Inc.

Filing 10

ORDER by Judge Whyte denying 5 Ex Parte Application ; denying 9 Ex Parte Application. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Tokyo Electron Limited ("TEL") seeks to proceed ex parte in their application for a right to attach order against Spansion, Inc. ("Spansion"). Under Local Rule 7-10, a party may file a motion ex parte only if permitted by law, and if the party has complied with the applicable provision. Civ. L.R. 7-10. Under the California Code of Civil Procedure 485.210, a plaintiff v. SPANSION, INC., Defendants. TOKYO ELECTRON LIMITED, Plaintiff, No. C-09-00502 RMW ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED EX PARTE [Re Docket No. 9] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION E-FILED on 02/10/09 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 seeking a right to attach order ex parte must show that grave or irreparable injury would result if the order were delayed until the matter could be heard on notice. TEL states in their motion that irreparable injury will result because Spansion has publicly announced that it has "initiated discussions to begin an organized process of potential balance sheet restructuring opportunities" and will delay making certain payments on other obligations. Notice of Ex Parte Application for Right to Attach Order 4, Ex. C. TEL also states that their right to recovery "cannot seriously be disputed." Id. The court is not persuaded that Spansion's initiation of discussions to begin balance sheet restructuring adequately shows that, if Spansion were given notice of TEL's application for a right to attach order, grievous or irreparable injury would result. TEL may therefore re-file the application for a right to attach order for a hearing date in accordance with Local Rule 7-2. The court will consider a motion to shorten time in accordance with Local Rule 6-1 if it is filed. DATED: 02/09/09 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: Counsel for Plaintiff: Daniel J. Herling Counsel for Defendants: No appearance filed. Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. herling@khlaw.com Dated: 02/10/09 JAS Chambers of Judge Whyte 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?