Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02234/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02234-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent 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

Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Strike 

Joseph M. Alioto (SBN 42680) 

Jamie L. Miller (SBN 271452) 

ALIOTO LAW FIRM 

One Sansome Street, 35th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: 415-434-8900 

Facsimile: 415-434-9200 

Email: jmiller@aliotolaw.com

Email: jmalioto@aliotolaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SHARIDAN STILES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 

 2:14-cv-2234-MCE-CMK 

PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION 

FOR AN ORDER 

SHORTENING TIME TO 

HEAR MOTION TO STRIKE 

DEFENDANTS’ SECOND 

MOTION TO DISMISS

DECLARATION OF JAMIE L. 

MILLER

ORDER SHORTENING TIME 

The Honorable Morrison C. 

England, Jr.

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 78 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 7
 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

Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Strike 

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME 

 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 144(e), Plaintiffs Sharidan Stiles and Stiles 4 U, Inc. 

(hereafter “Stiles” or “Plaintiff”) respectfully applies for an order shortening time to hear its 

Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss, filed concurrently. The undersigned 

counsel contacted counsel for the Defendants on October 9, 2016, to obtain their position on 

this application to shorten time. Counsel for Walmart, Laura Chapman, advised that she 

“anticipate[s] that we oppose the ex parte.” She also stated that she is traveling to North 

Carolina for a two-day trial. As of the filing of this Application, counsel for AI has not 

responded. (Miller Decl., ¶ 4).

 Plaintiff requests that this Court enter an Order in response to this Application 

providing that any responses to the Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss 

be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on October 12, 2016, that any reply in support of the Motion to 

Strike Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss be filed by 5:00 p.m. on October 13, 2016, and 

that the Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss be heard as soon as the Court 

is available to hear it. 

 This Court has authority to shorten time to hear the Motion to Strike Defendants’ 

Second Motion to Dismiss. Rule 6(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure set forth the 

time for hearings on noticed motions “except[]...when a court order—which a party may, for 

good cause, apply for ex parte—sets a different time.” Fed. R. Ci. P. 6(c)(1); see also United

States v. Fitch, 472 F.2d 548, 549 n.5 (9th Cir. 1973) (citing former Rule 6(c) and explaining 

that this rule “allows the district court discretion to shorten time.”) The Local Civil Rules for 

the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California recognize this authority, and 

provide that “applications to shorten time shall set forth by affidavit of counsel the 

circumstances claimed to justify the issuance of an order shortening time.” Local R. 144(e). 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 78 Filed 10/19/16 Page 2 of 7
 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

Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Strike 

 Good cause exists for this application. On October 6, 2016, Defendants filed a second 

Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 71) that violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2) because it makes 

arguments that were available to them when the first Motion to Dismiss was filed. 

Defendants filed the first Motion to Dismiss two months ago on August 8, 2016. (Dkt. No. 64 

and 65.) Plaintiffs filed an Opposition over a month ago on September 6, 2016. (Dkt. No. 

69.) Briefing on that motion completed on October 7, 2016 (Dkt. No. 73 and 74.) In good 

faith, counsel for Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for Defendants, and the parties stipulated 

on a briefing schedule and a hearing date for the first Motion to Dismiss that accommodated 

the parties’ existing conflicts in other matters. (Dkt. No. 66 and 68.) A Second Motion to 

Dismiss was never mentioned during the course of those discussions. (Miller Decl., ¶ 3.) Any 

opposition to Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss would otherwise be due on October 20, 

2016, and thus, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court hear the Motion to Strike before 

any opposition to the Second Motion to Dismiss is due. In addition, having previously worked 

out a schedule for briefing on the Motion to Dismiss, counsel for Plaintiffs now have conflicts 

in other matters that would require additional time to file an opposition to the Second Motion 

to Dismiss, if the Motion is not stricken. (Miller Decl., ¶ 3.) 

//

//

//

//

// 

//

//

//

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 78 Filed 10/19/16 Page 3 of 7
 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

Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Strike 

Plaintiffs thus respectfully request that this Court exercise the authority granted to it by 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(c)(1) and Local Civil Rule 144(e) here and shorten the time by which the 

Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss will be briefed and heard. 

 Respectfully submitted: 

Dated: October 10, 2016 ALIOTO LAW FIRM

/s Jamie L. Miller 

 Jamie L. Miller (SBN 271452) 

Joseph M. Alioto (SBN 42680) 

ALIOTO LAW FIRM 

One Sansome Street, 35th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: 415-434-8900 

Facsimile: 415-434-9200 

Email: jmiller@aliotolaw.com

Email: jmalioto@aliotolaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs Sharidan Stiles and Stiles 

4 U, Inc.

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 78 Filed 10/19/16 Page 4 of 7
 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

4

Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Strike 

DECLARATION OF JAMIE L. MILLER 

 I, Jamie L. Miller, declare as follows: 

1. I am an associate of the Alioto Law Firm, counsel of record for Plaintiff 

Sharidan Stiles and Stiles 4 U, Inc. I make this Declaration pursuant to Local Rule 144(e) and 

in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss. 

2. Concurrent with this application, Plaintiff has moved to strike Defendants’

Second Motion to Dismiss. The Second Motion to Dismiss violates Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2), 

raising arguments that should have been made two months ago when the First Motions to 

Dismss were filed on August 8, 2016. (Dkt. No. 64 and 65.) 

3. Good cause exists to grant this application. Counsel for Plaintiff conferred

with counsel for Defenant in good faith regarding a briefing schedule and a hearing date on 

the First Motion to Dismiss. Defendants never disclosed that they planned to file a second 

Motion to Dismiss during the course of those discussions or as part of the briefing schedule. 

Plaintiffs’ opposition to the second Motion to Dismiss would otherwise be due on October 20, 

and Plaintiffs request that this Court hear the matter before any opposition woudl be due.

Further, having relied on the schedule set forth by the parties, Plaintiffs now have conflicts in 

other matters, including: (1) a complaint and motion for injunctive relief to be filed this week 

in the Northern District of California; (2) a motion for reconsideration due on or before 

October 14, 2016, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon; (3) and 

preparation for and attendance at a hearing for injunctive relief on October 19, 2016, in the 

Northern District of California.

4. On October 9, 2016, I sent counsel for the Defendants an electronic mail at the 

email addreses of record notifying them of Plaintiffs intent to seek an ex parte application to 

shorten time in this Court. Counsel for Walmart, Laura Chapman, advised that she 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 78 Filed 10/19/16 Page 5 of 7
 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

5

Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Strike 

“anticipate[s] that we oppose the ex parte.” She also stated that she is traveling to North 

Carolina for a two-day trial. As of the filing of this Application, counsel for AI has not 

responded.

 I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America 

that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on October 10, 

2016, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ Jamie L. Miller 

 Jamie L. Miller 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 78 Filed 10/19/16 Page 6 of 7
 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

6

Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time to Hear Motion to Strike 

ORDER

 The parties to this action have had a Motion to Dismiss pending before this Court and 

set to be heard on November 3, 2016 for some time. On October 6, 2016, Defendant WalMart Stores, Inc. filed a second Motion to Dismiss additional claims in Plaintiff’s Second 

Amended Complaint (which motion was joined by Defendant American International 

Industries, Inc.), also noticed for November 3, 2016. On October 10, 2016 Plaintiffs Sharidan 

Stiles and Stiles 4 U, Inc. filed a Motion to Strike Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss, 

noticed for November 17, 2016, as well as an Ex Parte Application for an Order Shortening 

Time to Hear that Motion to Strike. 

 Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Shortening Time is DENIED; Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Strike will be heard as noticed on November 17, 2016. 

 On its own motion, the Court hereby consolidates all pending motions and continues 

those currently noticed for November 3, 2016 to November 17, 2016. Plaintiff’s deadline to 

file an Opposition to Defendants’ Second Motion to Dismiss is therefore extended from 

October 20 to November 3, 2016. Should Plaintiff require additional time beyond 

November 3, the Court anticipates that the parties will be able to stipulate to an additional 

extension. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 18, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-02234-DAD-DMC Document 78 Filed 10/19/16 Page 7 of 7