Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01905/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01905-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 It is unclear whether the motion is a motion for leave to file an amended complaint

(or select from two alternatives), a motion for final judgment or a motion for reconsideration

(for which leave has not been granted), or some combination of the three. Defendants will

have to address the nature of the motion in their opposition.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT JACOBSEN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MATTHEW KATZER and KAMIND

ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-01905 JSW

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE

AND RESETTING DEADLINES

Now before the Court are submissions entitled Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion

Regarding Schedule Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, and

Scheduling Settlement Conference and CMC Dates, Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s

Administrative Motion Re: Scheduling and an ex parte letter from counsel for Plaintiff directed

at the Court regarding the parties’ ongoing disputes. 

On October 30, 2007, Plaintiff submitted a motion entitled Motion for Leave to File

Second Amended Complaint, and in the Alternative, Motion for Final Judgment Under Rule

54(b) as to Cybersquatting Cause of Action and set the hearing for January 4, 2008. On

November 1, 2007, the Court issued an order setting out a briefing schedule on the motion. 

What followed was a series of submissions that are, for the most part, unintelligible. Due

process requires that the Court permit Defendants an opportunity to respond to Plaintiff’s

pending motion.1

 Due to the Court’s calendar, the pending motion was set for the next available

Case 3:06-cv-01905-JSW Document 180 Filed 11/07/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

date of January 4, 2008. It is clear from the recent submissions that Defendants’ counsel is not

available on the date selected for the hearing, and has requested the hearing be placed on the

Court’s calendar for another date. Plaintiff clearly wishes to accommodate the request to move

the date, but seeks to continue other dates as well.

In this regard, the Court HEREBY RESETS the pending motion for hearing on January

18, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. The briefing schedule shall remain as previously set and the Court will

make every effort to rule on the motion upon submission of the briefs, unless it determines that

a hearing is necessary. The Court HEREBY RESETS the deadline for completing the

settlement conference to February 15, 2008. The Court HEREBY RESETS the case

management conference for March 14, 2008 at 1:30 p.m.

Lastly, the Court admonishes counsel for Plaintiff to refrain from submitting ex

parte letters to the Court. Such submissions are not permitted and failure to follow this Court’s

rules will result in sanctions. See Standing Order ¶¶ 3, 10.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01905-JSW Document 180 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 2