Datatreasury Corporation v. Wells Fargo & Company et al
Filing
747
Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #535 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of the '007 Patent by Datatreasury Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rupp, Karl)
Datatreasury Corporation v. Wells Fargo & Company et al
Doc. 747
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC
Document 747
Filed 07/10/2007
Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION DATATREASURY CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, et al Defendants. § § § § § § § § §
Civil Action No. 2:06-CV-72 Jury
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PLAINTIFF'S SURREPLY TO DEFENDANT CLEARINGHOUSE PAYMENTS COMPANY, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE `007 PATENT ________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff DataTreasury ("DataTreasury") files this its Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time To File Plaintiff's Surreply to Defendant Clearinghouse Payments Company, LLC's Motion For Summary Judgment of Non-infringement of the `007 Patent. In support of its Motion, Plaintiff states as follows: 1) The parties have conferred and agreed to amend the due date for
DataTreasury's Surreply to Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment of Noninfringement of the `007 Patent as follows: July 20, 2007 2) Plaintiff's Surreply to Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment
The parties do not propose this change in the deadline for the purpose of
delay; rather, this amendment to the Court's Docket Control order are necessary for Plaintiff to fully and adequately respond to the Motion For Summary Judgment. The
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC
Document 747
Filed 07/10/2007
Page 2 of 4
parties do not propose to change any dates that will affect the trial date set forth by the Court. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grants its Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time To File Plaintiff's Surreply to Defendant Clearinghouse Payments Company, LLC's Motion For Summary Judgment of Non-infringement of the `007 Patent. Dated this 10th day of July, 2007.
Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Karl A. Rupp______________ ANTHONY BRUSTER State Bar No. 24036280 R. BENJAMIN KING State Bar No. 24048592 C. CARY PATTERSON State Bar No. 15587000 BRADY PADDOCK State Bar No. 00791394 NIX PATTERSON & ROACH L.L.P. 2900 St. Michael Drive, Suite 500 Texarkana, Texas 75503 Tel. (903)223-3999; Fax (903)223.8520
akbruster@nixlawfirm.com benking@nixlawfirm.com ccp@nixlawfirm.com bpaddock@nixlawfirm.com
EDWARD L. HOHN, ATTORNEY IN CHARGE State Bar No. 09813240 ROD A. COOPER Texas Bar No. 90001628 EDWARD CHIN State Bar No. 50511688 NIX PATTERSON & ROACH L.L.P. Williams Square 5215 North O'Connor Blvd., Suite 1900 Irving, Texas 75039
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC
Document 747
Filed 07/10/2007
Page 3 of 4
Tel. (972)831-1188; Fax (972)444-0716 edhohn@nixlawfirm.com edchin@nixlawfirm.com rcooper@cooperiplaw.com JOE KENDALL Texas Bar No. 11260700 KARL RUPP Texas Bar No. 24035243 PROVOST UMPHREY, L.L.P. 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75204 Tel. (214)744-3000; Fax (214) 744-3015 jkendall@provosthumphrey.com krupp@provostumphrey.com ERIC M. ALBRITTON Texas Bar No. 00790215 ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, Texas 75606 Tel. (903)757-8449; Fax (903)758-7397
ema@emafirm.com
T. JOHN WARD JR. Texas Bar No. 00794818 THE LAW OFFICE OF T. JOHN WARD, JR. P.O. Box 1231 Longview, Texas 75606 Tel. (903)757-6400; Fax (903) 757-2323
jw@jwfirm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ATATREASURY CORPORATION
Case 2:06-cv-00072-DF-CMC
Document 747
Filed 07/10/2007
Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a) and served via the Court's electronic filing system on all counsel who have consented to electronic service on this the 10th day of July, 2007. /s/ Karl A. Rupp________________________ Karl A. Rupp
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?