Opinion
CASE NO. 12-CV-6138
03-12-2013
AMERICAN SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., an Idaho corporation, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA ASSIGNMENTS LLC, a California limited liability company; DEVELOPMENT SPECIALISTS, INC., an Illinois corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive;, Defendants.
BRUCE L. SIMON (Bar No. 96241) GEORGE S. TREVOR (Bar No. 127875) WILLIAM J. NEWSOM (Bar No. 267643) PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP Attorneys for Defendants California Assignments LLC and Development Specialists, Inc.
BRUCE L. SIMON (Bar No. 96241)
GEORGE S. TREVOR (Bar No. 127875)
WILLIAM J. NEWSOM (Bar No. 267643)
PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNY, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants California Assignments
LLC and Development Specialists, Inc.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR
DEFENDANTS TO RESPOND TO
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Hon. Lucy Koh
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, American Semiconductor, Inc. ("Plaintiff") and California Assignments LLC and Development Specialists, Inc. (together, "Defendants"), by and through counsel, hereby stipulate and jointly move the Court to extend the time for Defendants to file their response to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 30) by one week, from March 8 to March 15, 2013.
(1) This request for an extension is being sought in order to afford Defendants' attorneys additional time to consult with their clients and to provide time to adequately address all issues raised in Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The request is not being made for purposes of delay.
(2) The parties previously stipulated to and requested that (a) the motion for preliminary injunction be heard at an earlier date than the originally scheduled April 18, 2013, and (b) Defendants be given until January 24, 2013 to respond to the Complaint. Dkt. No. 19. The motion to shorten time was denied due to the Court's schedule, but Defendants' request to extend the time to respond to the Complaint was granted. Dkt. No. 20.
(3) Defendants moved to dismiss the instant case on January 24, 2013. Dkt. No. 22. Defendants scheduled the motion hearing for the earliest available date, May 30, 2013.
(4) Subsequently, the parties stipulated to an extension of time to allow Plaintiff an additional two weeks to respond to the Motion to Dismiss, from February 7 to February 21, 2013. Dkt. No. 23. The Court granted that stipulation. Dkt. No. 24.
(5) The parties further stipulated to grant an additional single day extension for Plaintiff to file its response to the motion to dismiss on February 22, instead of February 21, 2013. Dkt. No. 28.
(6) On February 22, Plaintiff filed its Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 29), and a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 30).
(7) The present request would extend Defendants' time to respond to that Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by a week, from March 8 to March 15.
(8) Because the hearing on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and on Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, is scheduled for May 30, 2013, more than two months away, the proposed extension of time should have no effect on the schedule of this case. PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
LLP
_____________
By: J. Thomas Beckett
Counsel for Plaintiff
PEARSON, SIMON WARSHAW & PENNY,
_____________
By: William Newsom
Counsel for Defendants
ATTESTATION
By his electronic signature above, counsel for the Defendants attests that he is the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file the instant document, and that pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), all counsel whose electronic signatures appear above provided their authority and concurrence to file this document. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED
_____________
Hon. Lucy Koh
United States District Judge