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

Filing 34

ORDER GRANTING 32 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time to Respond to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by California Assignments, LLC, Development Specialists, Inc. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on March 12, 2013. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2013)CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 33 .

Case5:12-cv-06138-LHK Document32 Filed03/08/13 Page1 of 3

1 BRUCE L. SIMON (Bar No. 96241)
[e-mail]
2 GEORGE S. TREVOR (Bar No. 127875)
[e-mail]
3 WILLIAM J. NEWSOM (Bar No. 267643)
[e-mail]
4 PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
5 San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: [phone]
6 Facsimile: [phone]
7 Attorneys for Defendants California Assignments
LLC and Development Specialists, Inc.
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2450
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP

9

12 AMERICAN SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., an
Idaho corporation,
13
Plaintiff,
14
vs.
15
CALIFORNIA ASSIGNMENTS LLC, a
16 California limited liability company;
DEVELOPMENT SPECIALISTS, INC., an
17 Illinois corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive;,
18
Defendants.
19

CASE NO. 12-CV-6138
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Hon. Lucy Koh

20
21

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

22 California Assignments LLC and Development Specialists, Inc. (together, “Defendants”), by and
23 through counsel, hereby stipulate and jointly move the Court to extend the time for Defendants to
24 file their response to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 30) by one week,
25 from March 8 to March 15, 2013.
26

(1)

This request for an extension is being sought in order to afford Defendants'

27 attorneys additional time to consult with their clients and to provide time to adequately address all
28 issues raised in Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The request is not being made
853675.1

12-CV-6138
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case5:12-cv-06138-LHK Document32 Filed03/08/13 Page2 of 3

1 for purposes of delay.
(2)

2

The parties previously stipulated to and requested that (a) the motion for

3 preliminary injunction be heard at an earlier date than the originally scheduled April 18, 2013, and
4 (b) Defendants be given until January 24, 2013 to respond to the Complaint. Dkt. No. 19. The
5 motion to shorten time was denied due to the Court's schedule, but Defendants' request to extend
6 the time to respond to the Complaint was granted. Dkt. No. 20.
(3)

7

Defendants moved to dismiss the instant case on January 24, 2013. Dkt. No. 22.

8 Defendants scheduled the motion hearing for the earliest available date, May 30, 2013.
(4)

9

Subsequently, the parties stipulated to an extension of time to allow Plaintiff an

11 Dkt. No. 23. The Court granted that stipulation. Dkt. No. 24.
44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2450
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP

10 additional two weeks to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, from February 7 to February 21, 2013.

(5)

12

The parties further stipulated to grant an additional single day extension for

13 Plaintiff to file its response to the motion to dismiss on February 22, instead of February 21, 2013.
14 Dkt. No. 28.
(6)

15

On February 22, Plaintiff filed its Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.

16 No. 29), and a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 30).
(7)

17

The present request would extend Defendants' time to respond to that Motion for

18 Partial Summary Judgment by a week, from March 8 to March 15.
(8)

19

Because the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and on Plaintiff's Motion

20 for Partial Summary Judgment, is scheduled for May 30, 2013, more than two months away, the
21 proposed extension of time should have no effect on the schedule of this case.
22
23 DATED: March 8, 2013
24 PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
LLP
25
/s/ J. Thomas Beckett
26 By: J. Thomas Beckett
Counsel for Plaintiff
27

PEARSON, SIMON WARSHAW & PENNY,
/s/ William Newsom
By: William Newsom
Counsel for Defendants

28
853675.1

12-CV-6138
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Case5:12-cv-06138-LHK Document32 Filed03/08/13 Page3 of 3

ATTESTATION

1

By his electronic signature above, counsel for the Defendants attests that he is the ECF

2

3 user whose identification and password are being used to file the instant document, and that
4 pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), all counsel whose electronic signatures appear above
5 provided their authority and concurrence to file this document.
6
7
8
9 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED
___________________

11
44 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2450
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP

12
10 Dated: March ____, 2013

Hon. Lucy Koh
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
853675.1

12-CV-6138
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT