Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01346/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-01346-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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 Nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or this court’s Civil Local Rules provides

1

for requests to shorten time “by implication.” 

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EXPRESS DIAGNOSTICS INT’L, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BARRY M. TYDING, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS ACTION

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 06-1346 JW (PVT)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT AMEDICA

BIOTECH, INC.’S “OBJECTION TO

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE”

On April 8, 2008, Defendant and Cross-Claimant Amedica Biotech, Inc. (“Amedica”) filed a

document entitled “Objection to Dismissal Without Prejudice.” Based on said document and the file

herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Amedica’s “objection” is deemed to be a request to shorten

time pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3 rather than an objection pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, because it does not assert that this court’s order of April 4, 2008, was

either clearly erroneous or is contrary to law. See FED.R.CIV.PRO. 72(a). Instead, it asserts that its

prior motion “by implication” sought an order shortening time and requests that the court now 1

Case 5:06-cv-01346-JW Document 187 Filed 04/09/08 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 Because Amedica’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of its motion has 2

already been electronically filed, it need file only an amended notice of motion scheduling the motion

for a hearing date at least 35 days out. 

ORDER, page 2

schedule Amedica’s motion to compel on shortened time.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Amedica’s request to shorten time is DENIED. As

indicated in this court’s order of April 4, 2008, requests to shorten time are subject to Local Rule 6. 

Neither Amedica’s original motion, nor its current request, comply with the requirements of Local

Rule 6. Among other things, it does not identify the substantial harm or prejudice that would occur

if the court does not shorten time for the hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this ruling is without prejudice to Amedica filing a

properly noticed motion to compel.2

Dated: 4/9/08

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:06-cv-01346-JW Document 187 Filed 04/09/08 Page 2 of 2