Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

LAGREE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SPARTACUS 20th LP, 3:17-cv-00795. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20170412c80 Visitors: 1
Filed: Apr. 11, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2017
Summary: PARTIES' STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE THEIR ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, NAME MISAPPROPRIATION, UNLAWFUL AND FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES, AND CALIFORNIA COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . TO THE HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT: Pursuant to Rule 6-1(b) of the Civil Local Rules (L.R.), Plaintiffs LAGREE
More

PARTIES' STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE THEIR ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, NAME MISAPPROPRIATION, UNLAWFUL AND FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES, AND CALIFORNIA COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

TO THE HONORABLE JON S. TIGAR AND THE CLERK OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to Rule 6-1(b) of the Civil Local Rules (L.R.), Plaintiffs LAGREE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., LAGREE FITNESS, INC. MAXIMUM FITNESS INCORPORATED, and SEBASTIEN LAGREE ("Plaintiffs"), and Defendants SPARTACUS 20TH, L.P., SPARTACUS 20TH G.P., INC., PHILIP R. PALUMBO, JAKOB IRION, BODYROK FRANCHISE, L.P., BODYROK FRANCHISE G.P., INC., EXERCISE TECHNOLOGIES, L.P., BODYROK MARINA, LP., and SCULPT FITNESS BERKELEY, LLC ("Defendants") (hereinafter collectively the "Parties"), stipulate as follows:

WHEREAS, Defendants' deadline to respond to the Complaint is April 7, 2017, pursuant to the March 24, 2017 hearing and Court Order (ECF 32);

WHEREAS, the Parties stipulate to extend the time within which to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint;

WHEREAS, counsel for the Parties have continued to meet and confer regarding various causes of action and factual allegations in the Complaint;

WHEREAS, on April 7, 2017, counsel for Plaintiffs informed counsel for Defendants that Plaintiffs intend to file a First Amended Complaint on April 10, 2017;

WHEREAS, the Parties stipulate to an extension of time so Defendants do not have to respond to Plaintiffs' original Complaint on April 7, 2017, and instead Defendants will answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

WHEREAS, this stipulation will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order (other than the Court order referenced above, ECF 32). For example, the case management conference is presently scheduled for June 7, 2017 (ECF 32);

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that each of the Defendants' answer(s) or other response(s) to the Complaint shall be in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after Plaintiffs file a First Amended Complaint and Defendants do not need to respond to the original Complaint on April 7, 2017.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

FILER'S ATTESTATION

I, Robert P. Andris, whose ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this CIVIL L.R. 6-1(a) PARTIES' STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE THEIR ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT, NAME MISAPPROPRIATION, UNLAWFUL AND FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES, AND CALIFORNIA COMMON LAW UNFAIR COMPETITION. Defendants' counsel obtained Plaintiff's counsels' authority prior to the filing of this document. In compliance with Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that counsel for the Plaintiffs concurs in this filing.

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