GPNE Corp. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
Filing
42
ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFFS TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STAY. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on February 5, 2013. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
GNPE Corp.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Apple, Inc.,
14
Defendant.
15
16
17
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 12-CV-02885-LHK
and Related Case Nos. 12-CV-03055LHK, 12-CV-03056-LHK, and 12-CV03057-LHK
ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION
FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING
PLAINTIFF’S TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY
The parties have filed a stipulation seeking an order extending Plaintiff GPNE Corp.’s
18
(“Plaintiff”) time to respond to Defendants’ Apple, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Nokia Corp., Nokia
19
Inc., Pantech Co., Ltd., and Pantech Wireless, Inc.’s recently filed Motion to Stay. ECF No. 58.
20
Notably, each of the Defendants filed an identical copy of the Motion to Stay in their respective
21
cases. However, Defendants filed the Motion to Stay on different days. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
22
response to the Motion to Stay is due on February 7, 2013 in Case No. 12-CV-2885-LHK,
23
February 8, 2013 in Case Nos. 12-CV-03055-LHK and 12-CV-3056-LHK, and February 15 in
24
Case No. 12-CV-3057-LHK. The parties now seek to extend Plaintiff’s deadline TO RESPOND to
25
the Motion to Stay to February 11, 2013 in Case Nos. 12-CV-2885-LHK, 2-CV-03055-LHK, and
26
12-CV-3056-LHK. The parties do not seek to extend Plaintiff’s deadline to respond in Case No.
27
12-CV-3057.
28
1
Case No.: 12-CV-02885-LHK
ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF’S TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY
1
The Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiff file a single 10 page response to all Defendants’
2
Motions to Stay on February 8, 2013. Defendants shall file a single, joint, 5 page reply by
3
February 15, 2013. Defendants are also advised that, going forward, where all Defendants join in a
4
motion, Defendants should file one motion for all cases, rather than filing separate, identical
5
motions on different days. The Court also advises Defendants that, where Defendants all join in a
6
motion, Defendants need not deliver separate copies of the moving papers for each case. A single
7
copy will suffice.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
Dated: February 5, 2013
____________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-02885-LHK
ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION FOR AN ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF’S TIME TO RESPOND TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY
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?