Filed: Sep. 15, 2017
Latest Update: Sep. 15, 2017
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6) OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO STAY JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Plaintiffs Rearden LLC and Rearden MOVA LLC ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment LLC ("Defendants"), by and through their counsel of record, stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, on July 24, 2017, Plaintiffs filed thei
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6) OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO STAY JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Plaintiffs Rearden LLC and Rearden MOVA LLC ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment LLC ("Defendants"), by and through their counsel of record, stipulate as follows: WHEREAS, on July 24, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their..
More
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(6) OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO STAY
JON S. TIGAR, District Judge.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Plaintiffs Rearden LLC and Rearden MOVA LLC ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment LLC ("Defendants"), by and through their counsel of record, stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their complaint against Defendants (Dkt. 1) and Defendants were all served by July 31, 2017;
WHEREAS, by joint stipulation, the parties agreed that Defendants' deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint would be extended to and including September 15, 2017 (Dkt. 13);
WHEREAS, on July 31, 2017, this Court found that the above-captioned case (Rearden v. Fox) is related to the following cases, which are now pending before this court (Dkt. 8):
• Shenzhenshi Haitiecheng Science and Technology v. Rearden LLC, No.15-cv-00797-JST (SHST v. Rearden)
• Rearden LLC v. The Walt Disney Co., No. 17-cv-04006-JST (Rearden v. Disney)
• Rearden LLC v. Crystal Dynamics, Inc., No. 17-cv-04187-JST (Rearden v. Crystal Dynamics)
• Rearden LLC v. Paramount Pictures Corp., No. 17-cv-04192-JST (Rearden v. Paramount)
WHEREAS, the Defendants in Rearden v. Disney, Rearden v. Fox, and Rearden v. Paramount all intend to file motions to dismiss the complaints pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or, alternatively, to stay proceedings in those cases in the event the Court certifies the requested entry of judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) in SHST v. Rearden and also grants Virtual Global Holdings Limited's forthcoming motion to stay proceedings in that case pending the disposition of an immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 54(b);
WHEREAS, the Defendants in Rearden v. Disney, Rearden v. Fox, and Rearden v. Paramount are represented by the same counsel and will be making similar arguments in support of their dismissal motions on common issues;
WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiffs and for the Defendants in Rearden v. Disney, Rearden v. Fox, and Rearden v. Paramount have met and conferred regarding the most efficient way to file documents related to Defendants' upcoming motions to dismiss and have agreed upon the following procedure:
• Defendants in Rearden v. Disney, Rearden v. Fox, and Rearden v. Paramount will file the same consolidated Motion to Dismiss or Stay and supporting papers in all three cases;
• Plaintiffs will file the same consolidated Opposition and supporting papers in all three cases;
• Defendants will file the same consolidated Reply and supporting papers in all three cases; and
• Defendants' consolidated Motion to Dismiss or Stay will be within the applicable page and other limitations of this Court's Local Rules. Plaintiffs and Defendants presently intend for their consolidated Opposition and Reply papers, respectively, to be within the same limitations. This stipulation does not preclude either side from seeking an extension of those limitations, either by stipulation or Order based on good cause.
WHEREAS, the purpose of the foregoing procedure is to ensure that the Court and opposing counsel will need to review only one set of briefing papers in dealing with these Motions while preserving the record of each set of filings concerning the Motions in each of the respective case dockets;
WHEREAS, the parties further agree that if Defendants file their Rule 12(b)(6) motions on September 15, 2017, Plaintiffs' responsive brief and supporting materials will be due on October 16, 2017, Defendants' reply brief and supporting materials will be due on November 2, 2017; and Defendants will notice the Motions for hearing on November 16, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.;
WHEREAS, the parties will confer with one another and the Courtroom Deputy regarding a procedure to propose to the Court in the Joint Case Management Statement regarding the coordination of all of the related cases so that parties may file documents in only one master docket;
WHEREAS, the Defendants in Rearden v. Crystal Dynamics are not represented by counsel for the Defendants in Rearden v. Disney, Rearden v. Fox, and Rearden v. Paramount, and therefore any motion directed to the pleading that Defendants in Rearden v. Crystal Dynamics will not present the need for a single consolidated brief; nevertheless, to ensure a coordinated briefing schedule and the need for the Court to consider and hear all motions directed to the pleadings at the same time, Plaintiffs will agree that briefing on any motion filed by the parties to Rearden v. Crystal Dynamics shall take place according to the same time and page-limit schedule set forth above;
NOW THEREFORE, for good cause, the parties in the Rearden v. Disney, Rearden v. Fox, and Rearden v. Paramount cases stipulate that the documents relevant to Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints and Plaintiffs' responsive brief in these cases will be filed pursuant to the procedure and deadlines set forth above.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
CIVIL LOCAL RULE 5-1 ATTESTATION
I, Kelly M. Klaus, am the ECF user whose credentials were utilized in the electronic filing of this document. In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Mark S. Carlson concurred in the filing of this document.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
