Innovus Prime, LLC v. Panasonic Corporation et al
Filing
49
STIPULATION AND ORDER 38 Selecting ADR Process. Case Referred to Mediation. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 3/21/13. (jgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CHRISTOPHER J. COX (Bar No. 151650)
Email: chris.cox@weil.com
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 802-3000
Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
DAVID L. YOHAI (Admitted pro hac vice)
ADAM C. HEMLOCK (Admitted pro hac vice)
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8000
Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
Attorneys for Defendants,
PANASONIC CORPORATION AND
PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN JOSE DIVISION
14
15
INNOVUS PRIME LLC,
Plaintiff,
16
17
18
Civil Action No. 12-0660 RMW
STIPULATION AND []
ORDER SELECTING ADR PROCESS
v.
PANASONIC CORPORATION, PANASONIC
CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA,
19
Defendants.
20
21
22
23
Counsel report that they have met and conferred regarding ADR and have reached the
following stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5:
24
The parties agree to participate in the following ADR process:
25
Court Processes:
26
☐
☐
27
28
Non-binding Arbitration (ADR L.R. 4)
Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) (ADR L.R. 5)
Mediation (ADR L.R. 6)
(Note: Parties who believe that an early settlement conference with a Magistrate Judge is
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER
SELECTING ADR PROCESS
CASE NO. 12-0660 RMW
1
appreciably more likely to meet their needs than any other form of ADR must participate in an
2
ADR phone conference and may not file this form. They must instead file a Notice of Need for
3
ADR Phone Conference. See Civil Local Rule 16-8 and ADR L.R. 3-5).
4
Private Process:
5
☐
6
_____________________________________________________________________________
7
The parties agree to hold the ADR session by:
8
☐
9
case to an ADR process unless otherwise ordered.)
Private ADR (please identify process and provider) ______________________
the presumptive deadline (The deadline is 90 days from the date of the order referring the
10
☐
11
Dated: September __, 2011
other requested deadline _____________________________________________
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
12
By:
/s/ Christopher J. Cox
Christopher J. Cox
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
13
14
15
Attorneys for Defendant|
Panasonic Corporation and
Panasonic Corporation of North America
16
17
Dated: September __, 2011
LAW OFFICES OF JOHN W. CARPENTER
LLC
18
19
By:
21
/s/ John W. Carpenter
John W. Carpenter
12 Metairie Court
Metairie, LA 70001-3032
22
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Innovus Prime LLC
20
23
24
25
26
[] ORDER
☐
☐
The parties’ stipulation is adopted and IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties’ stipulation is modified as follows, and IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: ____________ 201
27
__________________________
Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
28
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER
SELECTING ADR PROCESS
2
CASE NO. 12-0660 RMW
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?