JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING STATUS OF SERVICE AND STIPULATION REGARDING BRIEFING AND HEARING DATES FOR PARTIES' MOTIONS

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr., District Judge.

The parties submit this joint filing for two reasons. First, pursuant to the October 21, 2015 order (Dkt. 57), Plaintiffs Cheetah Mobile Inc., Cheetah Mobile America, and Cheetah Technology Corporation Limited ("Cheetah Mobile") and Defendant APUS Group ("APUS") jointly submit this statement regarding the status of service of the Complaint, Summons, and other required papers on APUS in the above-captioned action.

Second, Cheetah Mobile has filed a Motion to Serve Defendant by Alternative Means (Dkt. 58-63) and APUS intends to file a Cross-Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Service. The parties propose below a stipulated briefing schedule for those two motions. Relatedly, the Court has currently scheduled a 2:00 p.m. hearing on March 31, 2016 for a "further hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss [Dkt. 24]." See Dkt. 57 at 2-3. The parties jointly request that this March 31 hearing instead be used to address the parties' motions relating to service, and that the Court and parties address at that time whether and when to conduct any "further hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss [Dkt. 24]." This request is also addressed in the below proposed stipulated schedule.

I. STATUS OF SERVICE ON APUS

The Court's October 21, 2015 Order Quashing Service and Granting Stipulation states:

(Dkt. 57 at 2-3.)

While Cheetah Mobile has taken efforts to serve APUS in China via the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638 (1969) ("Hague Convention"), those efforts have not to date been successful. On December 15, 2015, Cheetah Mobile received a formal Certificate of Non-Service from the Chinese Ministry of Justice dated November 16, 2015, confirming that the Chinese Central Authority had attempted but failed to effect service on APUS.

Since then counsel for the parties conferred but were unable to agree on an alternative method of service on APUS. Cheetah Mobile's position as to those efforts is stated in its Motion to Serve Defendant by Alternative Means (Dkt. 58-63). APUS will state its position in its opposition and Cross-Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Service, which will be filed pursuant to the below schedule, subject to Court approval.

II. PROPOSED SCHEDULING

Beginning February 11, 2016, counsel for the parties have conferred regarding the briefing and hearing schedules for Cheetah Mobile's motion (Dkt. 63), APUS' anticipated motion to dismiss for lack of service, and APUS' pending motion to dismiss (Dkt. 24). As a result of these efforts, the parties have agreed to the following schedule to accommodate the current motion activity, if it is acceptable to the Court. In light of the current motion practice regarding the service issue, it would not make sense for the Court and the parties to address APUS' previously filed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 24)—which addresses personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and Rule 12(b)(6) issues—until after service is resolved.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, the parties to this action respectfully submit the following Joint Stipulation regarding Briefing and Hearing Dates for Parties' Motions. The proposed schedule would keep the currently calendared March 31, 2016 hearing date to address the motions regarding service, and would allow the parties and the Court to address at that time whether and when to conduct a hearing on APUS' previously filed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 24).

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), counsel for Plaintiffs has obtained the concurrence of Defendant's counsel in the filing of this Joint Statement and Stipulation.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.