Oracle America, Inc. v. Innovative Technology Distributors, LLC

Filing 70

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 67 Motion to relate cases. Case 11-CV-02135 is related to this case. (mpb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/24/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

MERYL MACKLIN (CA State Bar No. 115053)
[e-mail]
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP
560 Mission Street, 25th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2994
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

ROBERT S. FRIEDMAN (pro hac vice)
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &
HAMPTON LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

JEFFREY S. ROSS (CA State Bar No. 138172)
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
500 Oracle Parkway, 7th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Oracle America, Inc.

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
DISTRIBUTORS LLC
Defendant.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

#62710 v1 saf

CASE NO. 5:11-CV-01043-LHK
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
SHOULD BE RELATED

1

WHEREAS, for all the reasons detailed in the Joint Administrative Motion To

2

Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related (the “Motion”) filed herewith, the parties believe that

3

the action styled Innovative Technology Distributors, LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Case

4

No. 3:11-cv-02135 EDL) is properly deemed related to and consolidated with the instant action, and

5
6

WHEREAS, the parties believe that each party should respond to the other party’s
operative complaint on Friday May 27, 2011,

7

THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate and request entry of an order as follows:

8

1.

9

Case No. 3:11-cv-02135 EDL) is hereby deemed “related” to this action pursuant to L.R. 3-12(a);

10
11

Innovative Technology Distributors, LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (N.D. Cal.

2.

The two matters are hereby “consolidated” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 42(a)(2); and

12

3.

13

on May 27, 2011.

14

The parties’ responsive pleadings in each of the consolidated actions are due

Dated: May 24, 2011

HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP

15
By: s/ Meryl Macklin
Meryl Macklin
Attorneys for Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc.

16
17
18
19

Dated: May 24, 2011

20

By: s/ Jill F. Kopeikin
Jill F. Kopeikin
Attorneys for Defendant Innovative Technology
Distributors LLC.

21
22
23
24
25
26

GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP

Attestation: The filer of this document attests that concurrence in the filing of the document has
been obtained from each other signatory.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED
Dated ____________, 2011
: May 24, 2011

______________________________________
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh
United States District Judge

27
28
1

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re oint Administrative Motion To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related
Oracle v. Innovative Technology Distributors LLC
Case No. 5:11-CV-01043-LHK
#62710 v1 saf