Incorp Services, Inc., v. Legalzoom.com, Inc.,

Filing 29

STIPULATION re 17 Amended Complaint ; Second Stipulation and [Proposed] Order for Extension of Time to Respond to First Amended Complaint by Defendant Legalzoom.com, Inc.,. (Jassy, Jean-Paul)

1 BOSTWICK & JASSY LLP 2

Gary L. Bostwick (admitted pro hac vice) [e-mail] Jean-Paul Jassy (admitted pro hac vice) 3 [e-mail] 4 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400 Los Angeles, California 90025 5 Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]

6

7 Attorneys for Defendant
LegalZoom.com, Inc.

8

9 Karl S. Kronenberger (admitted pro hac vice)
150 Post Street, Suite 520 San Francisco, CA 94108 11 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] 12 [e-mail]

KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE, LLP

10

13 Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 InCorp Services, Inc. 15 16 17 18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Case No. 2:09-CV-00273-RJH-(LRL) SECOND STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Second Request)

INCORP SERVICES, INC., a Nevada 19 corporation,

20 21 22
v.

Plaintiff,

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware 23 corporation,

24 25 26

Defendant.

Plaintiff Incorp Services, Inc. ("Incorp") filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC")

27 on April 6, 2009. Incorp and Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc. ("LegalZoom") hereby 28 -1-

SECOND STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

1 stipulate that a responsive pleading or motion relating to the FAC may be filed up to and 2 including May 13, 2009. 3 This is the second extension sought by LegalZoom relating to the FAC. The first

4 stipulation, extending the time to respond to May 6, 2009, was approved by order of the 5 Court on April 10, 2009. 6 The extension is sought because the parties plan to engage in substantive

7 discussions about the case on May 4, 2009. As a result of those discussions, the issues in 8 this action may change. In order to permit those discussions to proceed without either 9 party incurring potentially unnecessary fees and expenses, LegalZoom and InCorp 10 stipulate that it would be in the interests of the parties and judicial economy for 11 LegalZoom to have an extension until and including May 13, 2009 to answer, move or 12 otherwise respond to the FAC. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATED: ___________________ By /s/ Karl S. Kronenberger KARL S. KRONENBERGER Attorneys for Plaintiff InCorp Services, Inc. IT IS SO ORDERED: DATED: April 30, 2009 By DATED: April 30, 2009 BOSTWICK & JASSY LLP

/s/ Gary L. Bostwick GARY L. BOSTWICK Attorneys for Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc.

KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE, LLP

-2-

SECOND STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT