Lansmont Corporation v. SPX Corporation et al

Filing 28

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT re 25 . Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 3/21/11. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2011)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Rollin A. Ransom (SBN 196126) Courtney J. Chai (SBN 242266) [e-mail] [e-mail] SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, California 90013 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorney for Defendant HBM Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION LANSMONT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. SPX CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; SPECTRIS PLC, a private limited company; BRUEL & KJAER, a corporation, and HBM, Inc. a corporation Defendants. ) Case No. CV 10-5860 JF ) ) ) STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME ) ) TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND ) --------------------- ORDER [PROPOSED] ) ) ) January 24, 2011 ) Complaint served: ) Current response date: March 14, 2011 ) New response date: April 13, 2011 )

3 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
LA1 2043924v.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

This Stipulation is made and entered into pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1(b) and 6-2 by and between plaintiff Lansmont Corporation ("Lansmont") and defendant HBM, Inc. ("HBM"), by and through their respective counsel, with reference to the following: 1. WHEREAS, on December 23, 2010, Lansmont filed its Complaint ("the

Complaint") in the above-referenced matter; 2. HBM; 3. WHEREAS, under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, WHEREAS, on January 24, 2011, Lansmont served the Complaint on

HBM's answer or other response was originally due on or before February 14, 2011; 4. WHEREAS, Lansmont and HBM previously agreed to extend HBM's

time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by twenty eight (28) days, to March 14, 2011; 5. WHEREAS, Lansmont and HBM have agreed mediate their dispute in

early April 2011, and are currently in the process of retaining a mediator for such mediation; 6. WHEREAS, Lansmont and the defendants who have been served to date

have agreed to defer the initial Case Management Conference to April 29, 2011; 8. WHEREAS, this extension is not sought for the purpose of improper

delay, and will not prejudice plaintiff; instead, the purpose of this extension is to permit Lansmont and HBM time to attempt to resolve their dispute through mediation, without incurring unnecessary legal fees in the interim. /// /// ///

2 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
LA1 2043924v.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

NOW, THEREFORE, subject to the approval of this Court, Lansmont and HBM hereby stipulate that HBM shall have an extension of thirty (30) days, to and including April 13, 2011, to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. Dated: March 9, 2011 PEARSON, SIMON WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP

By: /s/ William J. Newsom William J. Newsom, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff Lansmont Corporation Dated: March 9, 2011 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

By: /s/ Courtney J. Chai Rollin A. Ransom Courtney J. Chai Attorneys for Defendant HBM, Inc. I, Courtney J. Chai, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file the instant document. Pursuant to General Order 45, I attest that William J. Newsom provided his authority and concurrence to file the instant document and place his electronic signature on the document set forth above. By: /s/ Courtney J. Chai Courtney J. Chai Attorney for Defendant HBM, Inc. ORDER HBM's time to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint is hereby extended by thirty (30) days to and including April 13, 2011. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED:
3/21/11

Hon. Jeremy Fogel

3 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
LA1 2043924v.1