American Semiconductor, Inc v. California Assignments, LLC et al

Filing 24

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 23 Stipulation (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2013)

Case5:12-cv-06138-LHK Document23 Filed02/07/13 Page1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6

John N. Zarian (SBN 145080)
PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
960 Broadway Ave., Ste. 250
Boise, Idaho 83706
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
American Semiconductor, Inc.

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

AMERICAN SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., an
Idaho corporation,

13

Plaintiff,

14

vs.
15
16
17
18

CALIFORNIA ASSIGNMENTS LLC, a
California limited liability company;
DEVELOPMENT SPECIALISTS, INC., an
Illinois corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,

19

Case No. 5:12-CV-6138-LHK

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR
PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO
MOTION TO DISMISS
Hon. Lucy Koh

Defendants,

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
STIPULATION [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR
PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO.: 12-CV-6138-HRL
4821-2651-6498.1

Case5:12-cv-06138-LHK Document23 Filed02/07/13 Page2 of 3

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, American Semiconductor, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and California

2

Assignments LLC and Development Specialists, Inc. (together, “Defendants”), by and through

3

counsel, hereby stipulate and jointly move the Court for an extension of time for Plaintiff to file its

4

response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #22) from February 7, 2013 to February 21, 2013.

5

(1) This request for an extension is being sought in order to enable Plaintiff additional time to

6

investigate factual matters and to provide time to adequately address all issues raised in Defendants'

7

motion to dismiss. The request is not being made for purposes of delay.

8

(2) The parties previously stipulated to and requested that (1) the motion for preliminary

9

injunction be heard at an earlier date than the originally scheduled April 18, 2013, and (2) Defendants

10

be given until January 24, 2013 to respond to the Complaint. Dkt. No. 19. The motion to shorten time

11

was denied due to the Court's busy schedule, but Defendants request to extend the time to respond to

12

the Complaint was granted. Dkt. No. 20.

13

(3)

Defendants moved to dismiss the instant case on January 24, 2013.

Dkt. No. 22.

14

Defendants scheduled the motion hearing for the earliest available date, May 30, 2013. Because the

15

hearing is more than two months away, the proposed extension of time should have no effect on the

16

schedule of this case.

17
18

Counsel for Plaintiff has conferred with counsel for Defendant and Defendants do not oppose
this motion.

19
20

DATED: February 7, 2013

21

PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER

PEARSON, SIMON WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP

24

/s/ John N. Zarian
By: John N. Zarian

/s/ William Newsom
By: William Newsom

25

Counsel for Plaintiff

Counsel for Defendants

22
23

26
27
28

2
STIPULATION [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR
PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO.: 12-CV-6138-HRL
4821-2651-6498.1

Case5:12-cv-06138-LHK Document23 Filed02/07/13 Page3 of 3

1

ATTESTATION

2

By his electronic signature above, counsel for the Plaintiff attests that he is the ECF user whose

3

identification and password are being used to file the instant document, and that pursuant to Civil

4

Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), all counsel whose electronic signatures appear above provided their authority and

5

concurrence to file this document.

6
7
8
9

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

10
11

8
Dated: February ____, 2013

___________________________

12

Hon. Lucy Koh

13

United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
STIPULATION [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR
PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO DISMISS
CASE NO.: 12-CV-6138-HRL
4821-2651-6498.1