Acceler-Ray, Inc. v. IPG Photonics Corporation

Filing 21

STIPULATION AND ORDER continuing hearing re 8 defendant's motion to dismiss. Motion Hearing set for 7/26/2016 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 6/15/2016. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2016)

1
2
3
4
5

Edward A. Kraus, SBN 162043
Kathryn E. Barrett, SBN 162100
SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP
50 W. San Fernando Street, Suite 750
San Jose, CA 95113
Tele: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ACCELER-RAY, INC.

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
ACCELER-RAY, INC.
10
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

vs.
IPG PHOTONICS CORPORATION,

14

Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

25
26

Case No.: 16-cv-02352-HRL
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE CONTINUANCE OF PHOTONICS
CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS,
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO
TRANSFER VENUE
[Local Rule 6-2(a)]
Current Hearing Date: July 19, 2016
Time: 10:00 am.
Courtroom 2, 5th Floor
280 S. First Street,
San Jose, CA 95113
Proposed Hearing Date: July 26, 2016

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), Plaintiff Acceler-Ray, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant IPG
Photonics Corporation (“Defendant”), by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as
follows:

23
24

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

STIPULATION
TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND TO
THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
1.

On May 6, 2016, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion

27

to Transfer Venue, Docket [8].

28

Case No. 16-cv-02352-HRL
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF PHOTONICS CORPORATION’S MOTION
TO DISMISS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
10476313.DOC

1

1
2

2.

and the Motion Hearing (In Re: ECF No. [8]) were vacated and that the case was being re-assigned.

3
4

3.

On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed its Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, or, in the

Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue.

5
6

On May 13, 2016 the court notified the parties that the Case Management Conference

4.

On May 27, 2016, Defendant filed its Reply to the Opposition to Motion to Dismiss,

or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue.

7

5.

On June 6, 2016, the court issued its Reassignment Order, re-assigning this case to

8

Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd for all further proceedings with instructions to re-notice the

9

hearing before Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd.

10

6.

On June 7, 2016, the court notified the parties that the hearing on the Defendant’s

11

Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue has been re-set for July 19, 2016

12

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA.

13

7.

Plaintiff is requesting a continuance of the hearing set by the court on July 19, 2016

14

because of a pre-paid planned vacation, and unavailable beginning July 12, 2016 returning on July

15

25, 2016.

16

8.

Local Rule 6-2(a) provides parties may file a stipulation, requesting an order changing

17

time that would affect the date of an event or deadline already fixed by Court Order, or that would

18

accelerate or extend time frame set in the Local Rules or in the Federal Rules.

19

///

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 16-cv-02352-HRL
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF PHOTONICS CORPORATION’S MOTION
TO DISMISS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
10476313.DOC

2

1

9.

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), the parties hereby stipulate and agree that Defendant’s

2

Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue be heard on July 26, 2016 at

3

10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.

4

10.

The parties believe no other filing dates scheduled in this case will be affected by this

5

modification.

6

Dated: June 14, 2016

SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP

7
/s/ Edward A. Kraus_______________
Edward A. Kraus, attorneys for
Acceler-Ray, Inc.

8
9
10
11

Dated: June 14, 2016

HOPKINS & CARLEY

12
/s/ Jennifer Coleman______________
Jennifer Coleman, attorneys for
IPG Photonics Corporation

13
14
15

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

June 15, 2016
Dated:___________________

_______________________________
Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd
United States District Court
Northern District Court

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 16-cv-02352-HRL
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF PHOTONICS CORPORATION’S MOTION
TO DISMISS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
10476313.DOC

3