Filed: May 20, 2013
Latest Update: May 20, 2013
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DANIEL M. SHAFER, District Judge. Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil L.R. 6-2, the parties hereto stipulate to this joint request for a continuance of the Initial Case Management Conference currently set for May 29, 2013. The parties request that the CMC be continued to Wednesday, July 17, 2013. In support of this stipulated request, the parties state as follows: 1. This case is one of six cases
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DANIEL M. SHAFER, District Judge. Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil L.R. 6-2, the parties hereto stipulate to this joint request for a continuance of the Initial Case Management Conference currently set for May 29, 2013. The parties request that the CMC be continued to Wednesday, July 17, 2013. In support of this stipulated request, the parties state as follows: 1. This case is one of six cases,..
More
STIPULATED REQUEST TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
DANIEL M. SHAFER, District Judge.
Pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil L.R. 6-2, the parties hereto stipulate to this joint request for a continuance of the Initial Case Management Conference currently set for May 29, 2013. The parties request that the CMC be continued to Wednesday, July 17, 2013.
In support of this stipulated request, the parties state as follows:
1. This case is one of six cases, all recently transferred to this District, for which an unopposed Administrative Motion to Consider Cases Related is currently pending before Judge Hamilton. (See Dkt. No. 31 in Case No. 3:13-cv-01774-PJH.) The cases in question (including this case) are:
a. Adaptix v. Motorola Mobility LLC, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-1774-PJH (N.D. Cal.)
b. Adaptix v. Apple Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-1776-NC (N.D. Cal.)
c. Adaptix v. Apple Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-1777-MMC (N.D. Cal.)
d. Adaptix v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-1778-NC (N.D. Cal.)
e. Adaptix v. HTC Corp., et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-1844-PSG (N.D. Cal.)
f. Adaptix v. Apple Inc., et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-2023-EMC (N.D. Cal.)
2. The Administrative Motion To Consider Cases Related is unopposed. In the event that the Administrative Motion is granted, the parties' understanding is that this case may be assigned to another judge who would set his or her own CMC date. (See Declaration of Daniel M. Shafer ["Shafer Decl."], filed herewith.)
3. In addition, two parties to this case have filed a Declination to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge and Request For Reassignment to a United States District Judge. (Dkt. Nos. 73, 74.) The parties' understanding is that this will also result in reassignment of this case, and vacation of the currently-scheduled CMC. (Shafer Decl.)
4. There have been no previous time modifications requested by the parties in this case. The CMC date in question was modified once by the Court acting sua sponte. (Dkt. No. 61.) There are currently no scheduled dates subsequent to the CMC in question, so the requested modification will have no further effect on the case schedule. (Shafer Decl.)
WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request, in the interest of efficiency, that the upcoming CMC currently set for May 29, 2013, be continued until Wednesday, July 17, 2013 (and that the related deadlines originally set forth in the Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (Dkt. No. 58) also be continued accordingly), pending the Court's decision on the Administrative Motion to Consider Cases Related, and/or pending the Court's action on the Declinations to Proceed Before a Magistrate.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 5-1(i) RE E-FILING ON BEHALF OF MULTIPLE SIGNATORIES
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of California. I am employed by Banys, P.C., counsel for Plaintiff Adaptix, Inc. The statements herein are made on my personal knowledge, and if called as a witness I could and would testify thereto.
2. The above e-filed document contains multiple signatures. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i), I declare that concurrence has been obtained from each of the other signatories to file this jointly prepared document with the Court.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
