Interserve, Inc. et al v. Fusion Garage PTE. LTD
Filing
237
Statement Status Conference Statement by CrunchPad, Inc., Interserve, Inc.. (Bloch, David) (Filed on 2/3/2012)
5
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
David S. Bloch (SBN: 184530)
dbloch@winston.com
Nicholas W. Short (SBN: 253922)
nshort@winston.com
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802
Telephone:
(415) 591-1000
Facsimile:
(415) 591-1400
6
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
1
2
3
4
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
TECHCRUNCH, INC., et al.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
FUSION GARAGE PTE. LTD.,
Defendant.
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. C 09-cv-05812 (RS) (PSG)
STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Date:
Time:
Judge:
Location:
February 9, 2012
1:30 p.m.
Hon. Richard Seeborg
Courtroom 3, 17th Floor
-----------------------------)
Plaintiffs TechCrunch, Inc., and CrunchPad Inc. (collectively "TechCrunch") submit this
19
status conference statement for the Court's consideration in connection with the February 9, 2012,
20
hearing as to whether the Court should enter default against defendant Fusion Garage PTE, Ltd.
21
22
A.
The Court should enter default against Fusion Garage and set a prove-up
hearing for TechCrunch to establish its damages on March 1,2012.
On December 29,2011, the Court entered an Order Granting Counsel's Motion to Withdraw,
23
in which the Court: (1) granted leave for Fusion Garage's former counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
24
25
26
27
Sullivan LLP, to withdraw from the case; (2) ordered Fusion Garage to obtain new counsel by
February 1,2012; and (3) ordered Fusion Garage to appear and show cause on February 9,2012
"why its answer should not be stricken and its default entered" if its counsel failed to make an
appearance by February 1,2012. Dkt. No. 236.
28
Fusion Garage did not retain new counsel. The Court therefore should strike its answer and
1
STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE
No. C 09-cv-5812 (PSG)
1
enter default against Fusion Garage. TechCrunch is prepared to prove the damages it has suffered as
2
a result of the causes of action alleged in the operative complaint. Dkt. No. 167. TechCrunch
3
proposes to prepare and file its motion for entry of judgment and serve it on Fusion Garage (via its
4
former counsel and by international post) by February 23, 2012, following which TechCrunch
5
proposes a prove-up hearing for March 1,2012. TechCrunch intends to submit an expert report
6
concerning damages and will be prepared to supply live testimony from TechCrunch and its experts
7
if the Court so desires.
8
B.
9
Enforcement remains troublesome because Fusion Garage has limited property
in the United States.
It appears that Fusion Garage has limited assets in the United States. TechCrunch thus will
10
need to enforce any judgment the Court may enter via international treaties concerning the
M
0
~
enforcement of foreign judgments. Discovery to date indicates that Fusion Garage has or had an
IX)
....:l .... .....
~
....:l ., .....
.,
= ....
........
:::
11
12
account at Wells Fargo and a PayPal account for collecting money from pre-ordered products, with a
..".
rfjO\
E.~
-< 13
iZi E u
~~o
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?