Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01333/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01333-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

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 

JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

Stephen L. Davis, Esq. (State Bar No. 149817) 

Mark R. Leonard, Esq. (State Bar No. 219186) 

DAVIS & LEONARD, LLP 

8880 Cal Center Drive, Suite 180 

Sacramento, California 95826 

Telephone: (916) 362-9000 

Fax: (916) 362-9066 

E-mail: sdavis@davisandleonard.com

Attorneys for Defendants Michael DiCarlo and RelyNet, Inc. 

John P. Costello. Esq. (CA State Bar No. 161511) 

Pamela W. Bertani, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 182672) 

COSTELLO LAW CORPORATION 

331 J Street, Suite 200 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 441-2234 

Facsimile: (916) 441-4254 

Glenn W. Peterson, Esq. (CA State Bar No. 126173) 

MILLSTONE, PETERSON & WATTS, LLP 

2267 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 210 

Roseville, CA 95661 

Telephone: (916) 780-8222 

Facsimile: (916) 780-8775 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Dustin K. Adler 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DUSTIN K. ADLER, an individual, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

RELYNET, INC., a California 

Corporation, MICHAEL DICARLO, an 

individual, INTERNET BRANDS, INC., a 

Delaware Corporation, VORTEX MEDIA 

GROUP, INC. a Delaware Corporation, 

and DOES 1 through 50, inclusively, 

 Defendants. 

___________________________________ 

And All Related Counterclaims. 

Case No. 2:08-CV-01333-JAM-EFB 

PARTIES’ JOINT STIPULATION AND 

REQUEST RE SCHEDULING OF POSTTRIAL MOTIONS; ORDER ON 

SCHEDULING POST-TRIAL MOTIONS 

Trial Date: January 25, 2009 

Honorable John A. Mendez 

Courtroom: 6 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:08-cv-01333-JAM-EFB Document 245 Filed 02/22/10 Page 1 of 4
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 

1 

JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

Counsel for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Dustin K. Adler and Counsel for 

Defendants/Counterclaimants RelyNet, Inc. and Michael DiCarlo have met and conferred and 

hereby stipulate and request that the Court enter an order scheduling post-trial motions and matter 

for the following reasons and in accordance with the following schedule: 

1. Plaintiff intends to file a motion for attorney’s fees under Rule 54, and a motion to 

amend or alter the judgment under Rule 59 to allow an award of pre-judgment interest on the 

judgment. 

2. Defendants intend to file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under 

Rule 50(b), and they also intend to file a motion to amend or alter the judgment, or, in the 

alternative, for a new trial under Rule 59, on the ground that the damages awarded by the jury 

were excessive and that the testimony of Chris Whitaker should have been excluded and 

prejudiced their case. 

3. The Court issued an order dated February 5 ordering the parties to attempt to 

prepare a judgment providing for declaratory relief and injunctive relief in accordance with the 

jury’s verdict and with the Court’s rulings on January 29, 2010 on the parties’ Rule 50 motions, 

and to submit a draft order within ten days. 

4. Under the Federal Rules, as amended in 2009 and effective December 1, 2009, the 

time to file motions under Rules 50, 54, and 59 has been extended from 10 days to 28 days. 

Considering the significance and number of issues upon which the parties expect to file motions, 

and the importance of coordinating the Court’s ruling on those motions with its entry of a final 

judgment that encompasses all forms of relief in this matter, the parties agree that a schedule 

should be prepared for hearing all of their motions on this matter. 

5. Accordingly, the parties request that the Court confirm that the parties have until 

28 days after the jury’s verdict dated February 3, 2010, or until March 3, 2010, to file any posttrial motions under Rules 50, 54, or 59, or under any other authority that allows the filing of any 

post-trial motion 28 days after entry of judgment. The parties further request that opposition and 

reply briefs be filed in accordance with Local Rule 230. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:08-cv-01333-JAM-EFB Document 245 Filed 02/22/10 Page 2 of 4
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 

2 

JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

6. The parties further request that the Court extend until March 3, 2010 the deadline 

for submission of a proposed judgment that includes declaratory and injunctive relief. In the 

event the parties cannot agree on such a draft, plaintiff will submit a proposed draft. Defendants 

will file a brief not to exceed five pages in opposition to the draft in accordance with Local Rule 

230, and Plaintiff will file a brief not to exceed five pages in reply in accordance with Local Rule 

230. 

7. The parties further request that the Court schedule a single hearing on all post trial 

motions as soon thereafter as is consistent with the Court’s calendar and in accordance with 

applicable law and motion and local rules. Both parties’ attorneys are available for a hearing in 

late March or early April. 

DATED: February 18, 2010 MILLSTONE PETERSON & WATTS, LLP 

Attorneys at Law 

By: /s/ GLENN W. PETERSON 

 GLENN W. PETERSON

 Attorneys for Plaintiff Dustin Adler 

 

DATED: February 18, 2010 COSTELLO LAW CORPORATION

By: /s/ PAMELA WINSTON BERTANI 

 PAMELA WINSTON BERTANI

 Attorneys for Plaintiff Dustin Adler 

DATED: February 18, 2010 DAVIS & LEONARD, LLP

By: /s/ STEPHEN L. DAVIS 

 Stephen L. Davis 

 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimants 

 RelyNet, Inc. and Michael DiCarlo 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:08-cv-01333-JAM-EFB Document 245 Filed 02/22/10 Page 3 of 4
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 

3 

JOINT STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

ORDER 

Having considered the parties’ stipulation, the Court orders as follows: 

1. The parties shall file any post-trial motions, including any motions under Rules 50, 

54, or 59, no later than March 3, 2010. 

2. The Court’s order dated February 5, 2010 is hereby modified as follows: The date 

for submission of a proposed judgment that includes declaratory and injunctive relief in 

accordance with the jury’s verdict and this Court’s prior rulings on the parties’ Rule 50 motions 

shall be March 3. If the Defendants do not join in the proposed judgment they may file an 

opposition brief not to exceed five pages within the deadline provided by Local Rule 230, and 

Plaintiff may file a reply brief not to exceed five pages within the deadline provided by Local 

Rule 230. 

3. The hearing on all post-trial motions and on the form and content of the final 

judgment, including any provision in the judgment for attorney’s fees, declaratory relief, interest, 

or injunctive relief shall be on April 7, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 6. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 19, 2010 /s/ John A. Mendez_____________ 

 JOHN A. MENDEZ 

 United States District Court Judge 

 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

Case 2:08-cv-01333-JAM-EFB Document 245 Filed 02/22/10 Page 4 of 4