Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01545/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01545-3/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 1

 Magistrate Judge Porter issued the current operative scheduling order on August 13, 2009.

(Doc. No. 56.)

- 1 - 08cv1545

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HANSEN BEVERAGE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08-CV-1545 IEG (POR)

ORDER DENYING JOINT

MOTION TO AMEND

SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. No. 70)

vs.

VITAL PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., a.k.a

“VPX,” a Florida corporation,

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to amend certain dates set forth in the

scheduling order.1

 (Doc. No. 70.) The parties have premised this motion on their mutual preference

for the pretrial deadlines in this case to fall after the corresponding deadlines in a similar case before

the Court, Hansen Beverage Company v. Innovation Ventures, LLC. dba Living Essentials (08-CV1166-IEG (POR)). The parties argue that although the instant action is not identical to Living

Essentials, allowing the pretrial deadlines in the instant case to follow those in the Living Essentials

case “will likely provide the parties guidance on how to proceed with, and possibly resolve, some or

all of the issues in this case.” (Motion at 1.) Accordingly, the parties have set forth numerous

suggested dates for a modified scheduling order, based on the existing deadlines in the Living

Essentials scheduling order.

Case 3:08-cv-01545-AJB-WVG Document 72 Filed 09/25/09 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

- 2 - 08cv1545

Although the parties’ basis for the instant motion is well taken, the defendant in Living

Essentials has filed a motion to continue the deadlines set forth in that case’s scheduling order. (See

08-CV-1166-IEG (POR), Doc. No. 117.) The Court has referred the motion to Magistrate Judge

Porter to determine whether there is good cause to amend the dates in the Living Essentials scheduling

order. (See 08-CV-1166-IEG (POR), Doc. No. 119.) As the dates in the Living Essentials scheduling

order will depend on Magistrate Judge Porter’s findings, those dates are now subject to change.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint motion. If the parties wish to re-file a similar

motion after Magistrate Judge Porter has ruled on the motion to amend the Living Essentials

scheduling order, they are free to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 25, 2009

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-01545-AJB-WVG Document 72 Filed 09/25/09 Page 2 of 2