Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02381/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02381-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

Michael C. Osborne, SBN 95839 

Andrew L. Chang, SBN 222309 

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 

333 Bush Street, Suite 600 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 544-1900 

Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 

E-mail: mosborne@shb.com, achang@shb.com 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MOTOROLA, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

BF&W ASSOCIATES, a California general 

partnership 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MOTOROLA, INC. 

Defendant. 

Case No. C 05-02381 JF 

DEFENDANT’S EX PARTE 

APPLICATION TO MODIFY BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE REGARDING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

 ORDER 

On November 7, 2005, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss in this action. In setting the 

hearing date for this motion, Defendant met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel, Jeffrey T. Stamp, 

who requested that hearing on Defendant’s motion be set for January 13, 2006 because Mr. Stamp 

stated he was unavailable during the month of December. Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-3, Plaintiff’s 

opposition must be filed and served by December 23, 2005 and Defendant’s reply brief must be filed 

and served by December 30, 2005. 

Because of the hearing date requested by Mr. Stamp, Plaintiff has 46 days to prepare its

opposition, while Defendant has only seven days to prepare its reply brief, which seven days

includes the Christmas holidays. Counsel for Defendant conferred with Mr. Stamp to determine

whether Plaintiff would stipulate to a modification to the briefing schedule. Mr. Stamp refused to so 

stipulate; however, he suggested that the hearing date on Defendant’s motion to dismiss be

EX PARTE APP TO MODIFY BRIEFING AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C 05-02381 JF 

95678V1 

Case 5:05-cv-02381-JF Document 49 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 2
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

continued. Defendant, however, would prefer to resolve its motion to dismiss as soon as possible. 

Therefore, continuing the hearing date on Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended 

Complaint is inappropriate. 

Defendant therefore respectfully requests that this Court permit the filing of its reply brief on 

or before January 4, 2006. This slight modification to the briefing schedule will permit Defendant’s 

motion to be heard on January 13, 2006 and also allow the Court nine days to examine Defendant’s

reply brief. Further, this slight modification would not prejudice Plaintiff. 

Dated: November 29, 2005 Respectfully submitted, 

SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. 

By: ___/s/ Andrew Chang_________

MICHAEL C. OSBORNE 

ANDREW LU-YOUNG CHANG 

Attorneys for Defendant 

MOTOROLA, INC. 

ORDER

It is hereby ordered that Defendant may file a reply brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint on or before January 4, 2006. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Date: ___12/9/05________ ___s/electronic signature authorized_______ 

 United States District Judge 

 2

EX PARTE APP TO MODIFY BRIEFING AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CASE NO. C 05-02381 JF 

95678V1 

Case 5:05-cv-02381-JF Document 49 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2