Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc. et al

Filing 510

ORDER Granting 509 Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File Response to 505 MOTION for Permanent Injunction. Responses due by 1/18/2013. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 1/2/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

Case 2:07-cv-00331-PMP-PAL Document 509

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 3

David E. Sipiora, Pro Hac Vice
Kristopher L. Reed, Pro Hac Vice
Matthew C. Holohan, Pro Hac Vice
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Kelly Evans, Nevada Bar No. 7691
Swen Prior, Nevada Bar No. 9324
SNELL & WILMER LLP
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1100
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants Pulse Electronics,
Inc. and Pulse Electronics Corp.

10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11
12
13

HALO ELECTRONICS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16

2:07-CV-00331-PMP-PAL

v.
PULSE ELECTRONICS, INC., and
PULSE ELECTRONICS CORP.,

UNOPPOSED REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
RESPONSE TO HALO’S MOTION
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
(First Request)

17
Defendants.
18
19
20

Defendants Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Pulse Electronics Corp. (collectively, “Pulse”)

21

respectively request an extension of time to respond to Halo’s Motion for Permanent Injunction

22

(Docket No. 505) (“Halo’s Motion”). Halo’s Motion is complex, numbering well over 20 pages in

23

length. Halo also has submitted multiple declarations in support of its Motion, including

24

declarations from both fact and expert witnesses.

25

In addition, Halo’s Motion was filed after 5 pm PST on December 21, 2012 – the Friday

26

night before the Christmas holiday. Furthermore, the response window allowed under LR 7-2(b)

27

also encompasses the New Year holiday. These holidays have negatively impacted Pulse’s ability

28

to marshal the factual, expert, and legal resources required to respond fully to Halo’s Motion.

1

Case 2:07-cv-00331-PMP-PAL Document 509

Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 3

Therefore, in order to allow Pulse adequate time to respond fully to Halo’s Motion,

1
2

including obtaining responsive factual and expert declarations as necessary, Pulse respectively

3

requests that the Court extend the deadline for Pulse’s response to Halo’s Motion to January 18,

4

2013.1
Per correspondence received from Halo’s counsel, Halo does not oppose this request.2

5
6
7

Dated: January 2, 2013

8

Respectfully submitted,

9

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

10
11

/s/ Kristopher L. Reed
David E. Sipiora, Pro Hac Vice
Kristopher L. Reed, Pro Hac Vice
Matthew C. Holohan, Pro Hac Vice
1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

12
13
14
15

Attorneys for Defendants Pulse Electronics,
Inc. and Pulse Electronics Corp.

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED:

19
20

Dated: __________________, 2013
January 2, 2013.

21

__________________________________
The Honorable Philip M. Pro
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26

1

The current response deadline listed on the Court’s CM/ECF notice is January 7, 2013.

2

27
28

Halo’s counsel indicated on December 28, 2012, that it consents to this request; however, due to technical
issues that rendered the Court’s CM/ECF system unavailable for filing this type of request from December
29 through January 1, 2012, Pulse was unable to file the present request until January 2, 2013.

2

Case 2:07-cv-00331-PMP-PAL Document 509

Filed 01/02/13 Page 3 of 3

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

I certify that on January 2, 2013, I caused a true and correct copy of UNOPPOSED
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO HALO’S MOTION
FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION (First Request) to be served electronically through the Clerk
of Court’s Electronic Case Filing System and ECF will send an email notice of the electronic filing
to the following:

3
4
5

Thomas M. Melsheimer
Fish & Richardson P.C.
1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
Dallas, TX 75201
[e-mail]

6
7
8

William R. Woodford
Michael J. Kane
John C. Adkisson
Fish & Richardson P.C.
60 South Sixth Street
Suite 3300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

9
10
11
12
13

Juanita R. Brooks
Fish & Richardson P.C.
12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130
[e-mail]

14
15
16

Lori N. Brown
Harmon & Davies, P.C.
1428 S. Jones Boulevard
Las Vegas, NV 89146
[e-mail]

17
18
19

Attorneys for Plaintiff Halo Electronics, Inc.

20

24

Kelly A. Evans
Paul Swenson Prior
Snell & Wilmer LLP
3883 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 1100
Las Vegas, NV 89169
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

25

Attorneys for Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Pulse Electronics Corp.

21
22
23

26
27
28

/s/ Kristopher L. Reed ______
64641070v1

3