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)
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?