Vendio Services, Inc v. P.S. Products, Inc et al

Filing 36

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION to Continue the CMC and Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss re 35 Stipulation. The parties' proposed date for the hearing and the Conference extends the case beyond what the Court had anticipated when it gra nted the parties a Case Management conference meeting to discuss why this case should not follow the schedule as set forth in the Patent Local Rules. In addition, in light of the Court impending relocation of chambers to San Francisco, the Court would wish to address the pending dispositive Motion prior to the move. Signed by Judge James Ware on 3/17/2011. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2011)

Vendio Services, Inc v. P.S. Products, Inc et al

Doc. 36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

UNIT ED

CHRIS H. STEWART, AR State Bar No. 03-222 [e-mail] STEWART LAW FIRM P.O. Box 3422 Little Rock, AR 72203 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 501.353.1263 Admitted Pro Hac Vice DAVID R. OWENS, State Bar No. 180829 [e-mail] BRUNO W. TARABICHI, State Bar No. 215129 [e-mail] OWENS TARABICHI LLP 111. N. Market St., Suite 730 San Jose, California 95113 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 408.521.2203 Attorneys for Defendants P.S. Products, Inc. and Billy Pennington

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

RT U O

DENIE

D
re

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION VENDIO SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. P.S. PRODUCTS, INC., an Arkansas corporation, and BILLY PENNINGTON, an individual, Defendants. WHEREAS, Plaintiff Vendio Services, Inc. ("Vendio") filed this declaratory judgment Case No. 5:10-cv-04455 JW ORDER DENYING STIPULATION JOINTLY REQUESTING TO CONTINUE THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND HEARING ON THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

22 action on October 1, 2010; 23 WHEREAS, a Case Management Conference was scheduled by the Court for April 11, 24 2011, at 10:00 a.m.; 25 WHEREAS, a hearing on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss was scheduled by the Court 26 for April 11, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.; 27 WHEREAS, the Court Ordered the parties to file a Joint Statement including a detailed 28

A

C

Dockets.Justia.com

LI
3/17/2011

FO

mes Wa Judge Ja

R NIA

NO

RT

H

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

explanation of the need for an exceptional schedule, a good faith proposed schedule, and the specifics of this case which warrant such an exception (the "Joint Statement") no later than April 1, 2011; WHEREAS, the Defendant's counsel has a conflict and is unavailable to appear before the Court on the date scheduled by the Court on April 11, 2011; WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and agree that the Case Management Conference should be continued until June 27, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and agree that the deadline for filing the Joint Statement should be continued to June 17, 2011; WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and agree that the hearing on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be continued until June 27, 2011, at 9:00 a.m.; NOW THEREFORE, the parties jointly request that: 1. the Court continue the Case Management Conference until June 27, 2011, at 10:00 a.m.; 2. the Court continue the deadline to file the Joint Statement to June 17, 2011; and 3. the Court continue the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss until June 27, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., SO STIPULATED. Dated: March 15, 2011 FENWICK & WEST LLP By: /s/ Ryan J. Marton Ryan J. Marton Attorneys for Plaintiff Vendio Services, Inc.

23 Dated: March 15, 2011 24 25 26 27 28 2 By: /s/ Chris H. Stewart Chris H. Stewart Attorneys for Defendants P.S. Products, Inc. and Billy Pennington STEWART LAW FIRM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45 I, Chris H. Stewart, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from any signatories indicated by a "conformed" signature (/s/) within this e-filed document. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 15th day of March 2011, at Little Rock, Arkansas. STEWART LAW FIRM By: /s/ Chris H. Stewart Chris H. Stewart Attorneys for Defendants P.S. Products, Inc. and Billy Pennington

UNIT ED

15 16 17

S

S DISTRICT TE C TA

RT U O
R NIA

DENIED
es Ware

ER

N

F D IS T IC T O R

The requested stipulation is DENIED. The parties' proposed date for the hearing and the PURSUANT TO the case beyond what the Management Conference it granted the parties a Conference extends STIPULATION, a Case Court had anticipated when is hereby scheduled for 18 Case Management conference meeting to discuss why this case should not follow the schedule as set _______________________________. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, a hearing on the 19 forth in the Patent Local Rules. In addition, in light of the Court impending relocation of chambers to San Francisco, the Court would wish to address the pending dispositive Motion prior to the move. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is hereby scheduled for _______________________________. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
17 Dated: March ___, 2011

A

C

LI

[PROPOSED] ORDER
FO
NO
Judge Jam

RT

H

By: Honorable James Ware United States District Chief Judge