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)
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?