Sricom, Inc v. Ebislogic, Inc et al

Filing 43

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 42 Stipulation (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2012)

Download PDF
Case5:12-cv-00904-LHK Document42 Filed11/27/12 Page1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 JONATHAN S. O'DONNELL (SBN 100051) jon@mbvlaw.com DWIGHT C. DONOVAN (SBN 114785) dwight@mbvlaw.com JACK PRAETZELLIS (SBN 267765) jack@mbvlaw.com MBV LAW LLP 855 Front Street San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415-781-4400 Facsimile: 415-989-5143 Attorneys for Defendants EBISLOGIC, INC., ASTERIX CONSULTING, INC., AND ELITE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC 9 E T 9 4 1 1 1 12 SAN JOSE DIVISION L A W M B V 13 14 8 5 5 F R O N T S S A N F R A N C I S C O R E C A NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA T UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 L L P 10 15 16 SRICOM, INC., Case No. CV12-00904 LHK Plaintiff, v. 18 EBISLOGIC, INC., ASTERIX CONSULTING, INC., ELITE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC, VMWARE, INC. and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, 19 STIPULATION TO CONTINUE EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION COMPLIANCE DATE; ORDER Defendants. 17 Date: Dept.: Judge: December 12, 2012 Courtroom 8, 4th Floor The Honorable Lucy H. Koh 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION TO CONTINUING ENE COMPLIANCE DATE CASE NO. CV12 00904 LHK Case5:12-cv-00904-LHK Document42 Filed11/27/12 Page2 of 3 1 Plaintiff Sricom, Inc. ("plaintiff") and defendants eBislogic, Inc., Asterix Consulting, Inc., 2 and Elite Technology Partners, LLC (collectively "defendants"), through their undersigned coun- 3 sel, hereby submit this stipulation to continue the compliance date for the parties' Early Neutral 4 Evaluation ("ENE") from December 12, 2012 to February 15, 2013. 5 1. Counsel for the parties and the evaluator initially scheduled the ENE session for 6 December 10, 2012. Counsel for defendant/counterclaimant Asterix Consulting, Inc. ("Asterix") 7 sought leave of Court for Asterix principal Amitabh Sharma ("Mr. Sharma") to attend by tele- 8 phone rather than in person. That request was denied on November 16, 2012. 9 2. The order denying the request stated, in part, "[t]he court strongly encourages the scheduled to a date that is more convenient for all." [Dkt. No. 40.] 12 3. Mr. Sharma resides in Atlanta, Georgia and will be out of the country from De- 13 cember 10, 2012 through January 14, 2013. He and the client representatives for the other defen- 14 dants/counterclaimants are available to attend an ENE session in California between January 28, 15 2013 and February 15, 2013. L A W M B V 8 5 5 F R O N T S A N F R A N C I S C O S L L P parties to seek an extension of the deadline for completing ENE so that the session may be re- 11 T R E E T C A 9 4 1 1 1 10 16 17 4. The court-appointed evaluator has stated that an extension of the ENE compliance deadline would be helpful in conducting ENE/mediation. 18 5. There have been no previous time modifications in scheduling the ENE. 19 6. A brief extension of time to complete the ENE will have no effect on the schedule 20 21 22 of the case. 7. The parties agree to continue the ENE compliance deadline to February 15, 2013, subject to approval of the Court. 23 MBV LAW LLP 24 25 Dated: November 26, 2012 26 27 28 91367.01//4826-2545-3073, v. 1 By /s/ JACK PRAETZELLIS Attorneys For Defendants and Counterclaimants EBISLOGIC, INC., ASTERIX CONSULTING, INC., AND ELITE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC STIPULATION CONTINUING ENE COMPLIANCE DATE CASE NO. CV12 00904 LHK Case5:12-cv-00904-LHK Document42 Filed11/27/12 Page3 of 3 1 2 LAW OFFICE OF CHUNG S. POON 3 4 Dated: November 26, 2012 5 By /s/ CHUNG S. POON, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 7 8 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: November 28, 2012 _______________. 10 L L P The Honorable Lucy H. Koh United States District Court Judge 12 13 4826-2545-3073, v. 1 14 8 5 5 F R O N T S A N F R A N C I S C O M B V L A W S T R E E T C A 9 4 1 1 1 11 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 91367.01//4826-2545-3073, v. 1 STIPULATION CONTINUING ENE COMPLIANCE DATE CASE NO. CV12 00904 LHK

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?