Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01833/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01833-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

STIPULATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

V E N A B L E L L P

505 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 1400

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

415-653-3750

VENABLE LLP

Frank M. Gasparo (Pro Hac Vice)

FMGasparo@Venable.com

Ralph A. Dengler (Pro Hac Vice)

RADengler@Venable.com

Gianna E. Cricco-Lizza (Pro Hac Vice)

GECricco-Lizza@Venable.com

Rockefeller Center

1270 Avenue of the Americas

Twenty-Fourth Floor

New York, NY 10020

Telephone: (212) 503-0655

Facsimile: (212) 307-5598

Kimberly Culp (SBN 238839)

KCulp@Venable.com

William A. Hector (SBN 298490)

WAHector@Venable.com

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400

San Francisco, California 94111

Telephone: (415) 653-3750

Facsimile: (415) 653-3755

Attorneys for Plaintiff VARIOUS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

VARIOUS, INC., a California corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., an Arizona

corporation,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 3:16-CV-1833-WHA

STIPULATION FOR ORDER

CONTINUING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ,

HEARING DATE ON MOTION TO

DISMISS AND RELATED

DEADLINES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

Current CMC: June 23, 2016

Current MTD Hearing: June 23, 2016

Proposed CMC and

MTD Hearing date: July 21, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-01833-WHA Document 35 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 3
-1-

STIPULATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

V E N A B L E L L P

505 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 1400

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

415-653-3750

STIPULATION

Pursuant to Local Rules, 6-2, 7-12, and 16-2(e), Plaintiff Various, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), and

Defendant Jedi Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”), through their respective counsel of record

(collectively, the “Parties”), hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff filed its Complaint on April 8, 2016 (“Complaint”);

WHEREAS, on April 11, 2016 the Court set an Initial Case Management Conference on

July 7, 2016 (Dkt. 8);

WHEREAS, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction on

May 3, 2016 (“Motion to Dismiss”) which it elected to continue with as if directed at the

amended complaint filed by Plaintiff on May 13, 2016;

WHEREAS, on May 19, 2016, the Court set Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for hearing

on June 23, 2016 (Dkt. 28);

WHEREAS, on May 31, 2016, the Court reset the Initial Case Management Conference

to June 23, 2016 (Dkt. 29), and the Initial Case Management Conference in this case is currently

set for June 23, 2016, at 8:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8 of the above-captioned court;

WHEREAS, the Parties conducted the Rule 26(f) conference on June 2, 2016;

WHEREAS, the Case Management Statement is due by June 16, 2016;

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiff have previously scheduled business travel plans that

conflict with the June 23, 2016, Initial Case Management Conference and Motion to Dismiss

hearing date;

WHEREAS, counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant have met and conferred on alternative

dates for the Initial Case Management Conference and Motion to Dismiss hearing and are

available on July 21, 2016, or thereafter at the Court’s convenience;

WHEREAS, good cause exists to reschedule the upcoming Initial Case Management

Conference and hearing on the Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff is unable to appear in person

for the Initial Case Management Conference and the Motion to Dismiss hearing without

canceling other plans that cannot be rescheduled, and because it will likely be more productive

for the Court and the Parties if Plaintiff’s counsel does appear in person;

Case 3:16-cv-01833-WHA Document 35 Filed 06/07/16 Page 2 of 3
-2-

STIPULATION; [PROPOSED] ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

V E N A B L E L L P

505 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 1400

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111

415-653-3750

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has also served discovery on Defendants, responses to which are

due on July 7 (30 days plus 3 days after the Rule 26(f) conference on June 2); and

WHEREAS, Defendant requested, and Plaintiff, agreed, to move the discovery response

date to fourteen (14) days after the rescheduled Initial Case Management Conference.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties,

through their respective counsel and subject to the Court’s approval, that the date for the Initial

Case Management Conference and the hearing on Motion to Dismiss be rescheduled to

Thursday, July 21, 2016, or as soon thereafter as is convenient for the Court. The Parties shall

file a Joint Case Management Statement not less than seven days prior to the new date set for the

conference. Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests currently due on July 7,

2016, will now be due fourteen (14) days after the new date for the Initial Case Management

Conference.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

Dated: June 7, 2016 VENABLE LLP,

By: /s/ Kimberly Culp

Kimberly Culp

William A. Hector

Attorneys for VARIOUS, INC.

Dated: June 7, 2016 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP,

By: /s/ Martin L. Fineman

Martin L. Fineman

Attorneys for JEDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:______________________ ______________________________

Honorable William Alsup

United States District Judge

June 7, 2016.

Case 3:16-cv-01833-WHA Document 35 Filed 06/07/16 Page 3 of 3