Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sidense Corp. v. Kilopass Technology, Inc., 14-02238-SI. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150929855 Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2015
Summary: JOINT REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND MODIFIED BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR KILOPASS'S PLANNED MOTION TO DISMISS SIDENSE'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(b), 6-2 and the Court's Standing Case Management Conference Order, Plaintiff Sidense Corp. and Defendant Kilopass Technology, Inc. (collectively "the Parties") hereby request that the Further Case Management Conference scheduled for Friday, October 9, 2015 be t
More

JOINT REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND MODIFIED BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR KILOPASS'S PLANNED MOTION TO DISMISS SIDENSE'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(b), 6-2 and the Court's Standing Case Management Conference Order, Plaintiff Sidense Corp. and Defendant Kilopass Technology, Inc. (collectively "the Parties") hereby request that the Further Case Management Conference scheduled for Friday, October 9, 2015 be taken off calendar, pending this Court's decision on Kilopass's planned motion to dismiss ("MTD") Sidense's First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), Document 37, filed herein on August 24, 2015.

Kilopass's response to the FAC is due on October 2 and it plans to file the MTD on that date. With that plan in mind, the Parties request the following schedule for further briefing and hearing on the MTD: (1) Sidense's opposition to be filed on Friday, October 30, 2015; (2) Kilopass's reply brief to be filed on Friday, November 13, 2015; and (3) the MTD be set for hearing on Friday, December 4, or as soon thereafter as the Court can hear the matter, with leave for the Parties to request a later hearing date to avoid undue conflict with whatever date the Federal Circuit sets for oral argument in the Parties' pending attorneys' fees appeal.

The Parties further request that, following the Court's decision on the planned MTD, the Court set a Case Management Conference at the earliest date on the Court's calendar that is at least 21 days after the MTD decision, in order to give the Parties adequate time to meet, confer and file a Joint Case Management Conference Statement seven days in advance of the Conference, pursuant to the Local Rules and F.R.Civ. 26(f). Among other topics to be considered prior to filing the Joint Case Management Conference Statement will be whether MTD decision has settled the pleadings and, if so, whether the Parties will engage in further settlement discussions.

Good cause exists for the requested continuance to avoid wasting the Court's time and the Parties' resources preparing for a Case Management Conference before a decision on the planned motion to dismiss.

This is the first requested extension of time for the Further Case Management Conference, and there are no other currently scheduled events that depend on the date of that Conference.

ACCORDINGLY, the Parties request that:

(1) the October 9, 2015 Further Case Management Conference be taken off calendar;

(2) after deciding Kilopass's motion to dismiss (MTD) Sidense's First Amended Complaint (FAC), which Kilopass plans to file on or before October 2, 2015, the Further Case Management Conference be rescheduled for the earliest date on the Court's calendar that is at least 21 days after that decision;

(3) the deadlines for Sidense's opposition to Kilopass's planned MTD, and Kilopass's MTD reply be extended to Friday, October 30, 2015, and Friday, November 13, 2015, respectively;

(4) the MTD be set for hearing on Friday, December 4, 2015, or as soon thereafter as the Court can hear the matter; and

(5) if the Federal Circuit hereafter sets oral argument in the Parties' pending attorneys' fees appeal on a date which unduly conflicts with the MTD hearing date, the Parties be given leave to promptly request a mutually agreeable revised later MTD hearing date.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 5-1(i)(3), RE E-FILING ON BEHALF OF MULTIPLE SIGNATORIES

In accord with the Northern District of California's Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of other signatories who are listed on the signature pages. I shall maintain records to support this concurrence for subsequent production for the Court if so ordered, or for inspection upon request by a party until one year after final resolution of the action (including appeal, if any).

September 24, 2015 /s/Roger L. Cook

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

The case management conference is continued to Friday, January 29, 2016, at 3 p.m.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer