Cisco Systems Inc v. STMicroelectronics Inc
Filing
20
STIPULATION AND ORDER 18 Re: Scheduling, Motions terminated: 11 MOTION to Dismiss DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES filed by STMicroelectronics Inc, 13 MO TION to Strike DEFENDANT STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND, THIRD, FIFTH, AND SIXTH CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16; MEMORANDUM O filed by STMicroelectronics Inc.. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 8/20/14. (jgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
Krista M. Enns (SBN: 206430)
kenns@winston.com
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802
Telephone:
(415) 591-1000
Facsimile:
(415) 591-1400
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
6
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
Winston & Strawn LLP
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
13
14
15
16
Plaintiff,
Case No. 5:14-cv-03236-RMW-HRL
STIPULATION AND []
ORDER RE SCHEDULING
v.
STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,
Defendant.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE SCHEDULING
1
Plaintiff Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc.
2
(“Defendant,” together with Plaintiff, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel,
3
hereby stipulate as follows:
4
5
WHEREAS, on June 13, 2014, Plaintiff filed the Complaint against Defendant in Santa Clara
Superior Court;
6
7
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2014, Defendant removed the action to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division;
8
9
10
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2014, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a special motion to
strike (“Motions”) in response to the Complaint with an agreed-upon hearing date of September 19,
2014;
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802
Winston & Strawn LLP
11
12
WHEREAS, the Court entered the Parties’ stipulation and proposed order extending the
deadlines for the Oppositions and Replies;
13
WHEREAS, Plaintiff intends to amend the complaint;
14
WHEREAS, because Plaintiff is amending the complaint, it would be a waste of party and
15
judicial resources for the parties to continue briefing and for the Court to hear the pending Motions;
16
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the
17
Parties, through their respective undersigned counsel, that the Court should find that good cause
18
exists to enter an order that:
19
20
1.
Defendant’s Motions shall be withdrawn without prejudice and the Motions shall be
taken off calendar;
21
2.
Plaintiff shall file its amended complaint no later than August 29, 2014;
22
3.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint will not add any new parties or claims; and
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
STIPULATION AND ] ORDER RE SCHEDULING
1
4.
The Parties shall agree on an appropriate deadline for Defendant to file its motions or
2
other pleadings in response to the amended complaint and an appropriate briefing schedule should
3
Defendant file any motions in response to the amended complaint.
4
5
Dated: August 18, 2014
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
6
By:
7
/s/ Krista M. Enns
Krista M. Enns
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
8
9
10
Dated: August 18, 2014
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
101 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5802
Winston & Strawn LLP
11
By:
12
/s/ Nicole Ryan
Nicole Ryan
Attorneys for Defendant
STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.
13
14
15
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
18
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge
19
20
LOCAL RULE 5-1 ATTESTATION
21
22
I, Krista M. Enns, am the ECF User whose ID and password was used to file this
23
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE SCHEDULING. In compliance with Local Rule
24
5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that, counsel for Defendant, concurred in this filing.
25
26
Dated: August 18, 2014
By:
/s/ Krista M. Enns
Krista M. Enns
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE SCHEDULING
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?