Apple, Inc. v. Eforcity Corporation et al

Filing 80

STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE re 78 . Case Management Conference set for 8/26/2011 10:30 AM in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, San Jose. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 6/20/11. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP THEODORE T. HERHOLD (State Bar No. 122895) ANDREW T. OLIVER (State Bar No. 226098) ROBERT D. TADLOCK (State Bar No. 238479) 379 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 326-2400 Facsimile: (650) 326-2422 Email: therhold@kilpatricktownsend.com aoliver@kilpatricktownsend.com rtadlock@kilpatricktownsend.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, APPLE INC. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP JON E. HOKANSON 221 N. Figueroa St., Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 250-1800 Facsimile: (213) 250-7900 Email: hokanson@lbbslaw.com Attorneys for Defendant, EFORCITY CORPORATION, ACCSTATION INC., ITRIMMING INC., and EVERYDAYSOURCE INC. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 SAN JOSE DIVISION 19 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 20 Plaintiff, 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. Civil Action No. CV10-03216 JF (HRL) STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE EFORCITY CORPORATION, a California corporation; ACCSTATION INC., a California corporation; ITRIMMING INC., a California corporation; EVERYDAYSOURCE INC., a California corporation; UNITED INTEGRAL INC., a California corporation; CRAZYONDIGITAL, INC., a California corporation; and BOXWAVE CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE CASE NO. 10-CV-03216 JF (HRL) -1- Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-12 and 16-2, Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Defendants 1 2 eForCity Corporation, AccStation Inc., iTrimming Inc. and EverydaySource Inc. (the “eForCity 3 Defendants”) stipulate to a continuation of the Case Management Conference and all related 4 deadlines to allow the parties to attempt to settle the action through the Court’s ADR process prior 5 to the Case Management Conference. 6 STIPULATION 7 WHEREAS, on April 1, 2011, the Court ordered Apple and the eForCity Defendants 8 (collectively, the “Parties”) to participate in a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Grewal 9 and the Parties scheduled the settlement conference for June 8, 2011; WHEREAS, approximately one week before June 8, 2011, the Parties learned that 10 11 Magistrate Judge Grewal did not have the settlement conference calendared for June 8, 2011; WHEREAS, the Parties are attempting to reschedule the settlement conference for mid- to 12 13 late- July 2011, and wish to engage in the settlement conference before participating in the Case 14 Management Conference and passing the associated deadlines; WHEREAS, the Court set a Case Management Conference for July 15, 2011 (ECF No. 15 16 76); 17 ACCORDINGLY, Apple and the eForCity Defendants hereby stipulate to a continuation 18 of the Case Management Conference to August 26, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. The Parties stipulate to a 19 like continuation of all deadlines that are based upon the date of the Case Management 20 Conference. 21 DATED: June 15, 2011 22 23 Attorneys for Plaintiff, APPLE INC. 24 25 26 27 28 By:/s/ Andrew T. Oliver Theodore T. Herhold Andrew T. Oliver Robert D. Tadlock DATED: June 15, 2011 By: /s/ Jon E. Hokanson (with permission A.T.O.) Jon E. Hokanson Attorney for Defendants, EFORCITY CORPORATION, ACCSTATION INC., ITRIMMING INC., and EVERYDAYSOURCE INC. STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE CASE NO. 10-CV-03216 JF (HRL) -2- 1 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED 2 3 20 DATED: June ______, 2011 By: Jeremy Fogel UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 5 6 63540180 v1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE CASE NO. 10-CV-03216 JF (HRL) -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?