Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

SOLYNDRA LLC v. SUNTECH POWER HOLDINGS CO., LTD., CV-12-05272-SBA. (2012)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20121212948 Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 10, 2012
Latest Update: Dec. 10, 2012
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND MODIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG, District Judge. WHEREAS, Plaintiff Solyndra LLC ("Solyndra") filed a complaint in the above-captioned case against Defendants Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., Suntech America Inc., Trina Solar Limited, Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc., Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, and Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") on Octob
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT AND MODIFYING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG, District Judge.

WHEREAS, Plaintiff Solyndra LLC ("Solyndra") filed a complaint in the above-captioned case against Defendants Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., Suntech America Inc., Trina Solar Limited, Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc., Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, and Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. (collectively, "Defendants") on October 11, 2012 (the "Complaint");

WHEREAS, Yingli Green Energy Holding Company was required to reply, absent this stipulation, by November 27, 2012, pursuant to its receipt of the Complaint and Summons under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h) on November 6, 2012;

WHEREAS, Trina Solar Limited and Trina Solar (U.S.) were required to reply, absent this stipulation, by December 11, 2012, pursuant to their agreement to waive service of the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) on November 8, 2012;

WHEREAS, Yingli Green Energy Americas was required to reply, absent this stipulation, by December 11, 2012, pursuant to its agreement to waive service of the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) on November 9, 2012;

WHEREAS, Suntech America was required to reply, absent this stipulation, by December 11, 2012, pursuant to its agreement to waive service of the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) on November 9, 2012;

WHEREAS, Suntech Power Holdings Company was required to reply, absent this stipulation, by December 24, 2012, pursuant to its agreement to waive service of the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d) on November 19, 2012;

WHEREAS, Defendants have agreed to jointly file any motion to dismiss the Complaint;

WHEREAS, the Parties, through their counsel, have conferred and agreed to a schedule for briefing any motion to dismiss, opposition, and reply thereto, as further specified in the accompanying Declaration of Matthew J. Reilly in Support of Stipulation of Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint and Briefing Schedule Regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss;

NOW, THEREFORE, SUBJECT TO THE COURT'S APPROVAL, Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., Suntech America, Inc., Trina Solar Limited, Trina Solar (U.S.), Inc., Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited, Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. and Solyndra LLC hereby stipulate and agree that Defendants' deadline to move to dismiss, answer, or otherwise respond to the Complaint will be January 22, 2013, and that if Defendants move to dismiss by such time, Solyndra's deadline to file its opposition to the motion to dismiss will be February 28, 2013, and Defendants' deadline to file their joint reply will be March 15, 2013. For the avoidance of doubt, Defendants and Solyndra also hereby agree that if Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint, their deadline to answer the Complaint shall be postponed until after resolution of such motion in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4).

The parties have requested no other time modifications, and the stipulated requested modifications would not alter the schedule for this case except as set out above.

ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING

Pursuant to the Northern District of California's General Order No. 45, Section X(B) and Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Defendants' counsel James Donato, Mikael Abye, Eliot A. Adelson, and Daniel E. Laytin and

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

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