Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06994/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06994-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 450
Nature of Suit: Interstate Commerce
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

Silicon Valley

Law Group

25 Metro Drive

Suite 600

San Jose, CA 95110

(408) 573-5700

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

Page 1

STIPULATION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH, ESQ. (SBN 54889)

ERIN M. ADRIAN, ESQ. (SBN 228718)

SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP

25 Metro Drive, Suite 600

San Jose, California 95110

Telephone: 408/573-5700

Facsimile: 408/573-5701

Email: ca@svlg.com

 ema@svlg.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Hotan Corp. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HOTAN Corp., a California corporation ,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAP LOGISTICS, INC., a California corporation;

BARRY A. PRATER, an individual; and DOES 1-

100, inclusive,

Defendants.

________________________________________

BAP LOGISTICS, INC.,

Cross-Complainant,

v.

HOTAN CORP., KHYPERMEDIA, INC.,

MEGATRUX, INC., a Florida corporation;

ALEJANDRO ONSANTO, an individual and

ROES 1 through 100,

Cross-Defendants.

________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C 06 6994 WHA

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

PAPERS

The parties stipulate and agree as follows in connection with the following facts:

1. Over the previous weekend, counsel for plaintiff was rendered deaf in one ear.

2. According to plaintiff’s counsel, such deafness has made communication with plaintiff’s

witnesses somewhat problematical, and has so reported to defendants’ counsel.

3. Counsel for plaintiff believes that plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion for summary

judgment is due on Friday, September 28, 2007.

Case 3:06-cv-06994-WHA Document 48 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 1 of 3 Case 3:06-cv-06994-WHA Document 49 Filed 09/27/07 Page 1 of 3
Silicon Valley

Law Group

25 Metro Drive

Suite 600

San Jose, CA 95110

(408) 573-5700

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

Page 2

STIPULATION AND ORDER

4. Counsel for defendants believes that plaintiff’s opposition is due on Thursday, September

27, 2007.

5. Both counsel agree that an extension of time to oppose to Friday, September 28, 2007 is

acceptable. 

6. By the court’s agreeing to the stipulation proffered here, the parties do NOT contemplate

any delay in the hearing of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 

Wherefor, the parties stipulate as follows: 

1. That plaintiff may have until Friday, September 28, 2007 to file its opposition to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment; and 

2. That defendants shall have until Friday, October 5, 2007 to file their reply to plaintiff’s

opposition. 

DATED: SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP

By /s/Christopher Ashworth 

 CHRISTOPHER ASHWORTH

DATED: SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 GREENE, CHAUVEL, DESCALSO & MINOLETTI

By /s/ Marc Hershman 

 MARC HERSHMAN

ORDER

Plaintiff may have until Friday, September 28, 2007 to file its opposition to defendants’

motion for summary judgment. Defendants may have until Friday, October 5, 2007 to file their reply

to plaintiff’s opposition. 

________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06994-WHA Document 48 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 2 of 3

September 27, 2007

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:06-cv-06994-WHA Document 49 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 3
Silicon Valley

Law Group

25 Metro Drive

Suite 600

San Jose, CA 95110

(408) 573-5700

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

PROOF OF SERVICE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I declare as follows: I am over eighteen years of age and not a party to the within action; I am

employed in the County of Santa Clara, California; my business address is 25 Metro Drive, Suite 600,

San Jose, CA 95110.

On September 26, 2007, I served a true and correct copy of the following document[s], with

all exhibits, if any, on the following party[ies]: STIPULATION AND ORDER RE EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE PAPERS

Marc Hershman, Esq.

Greene, Chauvel, Descalso & Minoletti

951 Mariner’s Island Blvd. #630

San Mateo, CA 94404

Facsimile: 650/573-9689

[ XX ] BY MAIL: I am readily familiar with my employer’s business practice for collection and processing of

correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I served the above document[s] on the party[ies] named

above in the above-referenced matter, by following ordinary business practice, placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a

sealed envelope, for collection and mailing with the United States Postal Service where it would be deposited for first

class delivery, postage fully prepaid, in the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business,

addressed to the party[ies] at the address[es] listed above. [FRCP, Rule 5(b)].

[ ] BY EXPRESS MAIL: I served the above document[s] on the party[ies] named above, in the above-referenced

matter, by placing the above-named document[s] in a sealed envelope and depositing them in a mailbox regularly

maintained by the United States Postal Service for receipt of Express Mail, at Post Office, 

, California, with Express Mail postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the party[ies] at the

address[es] listed above. [ ]

[ ] BY FEDERAL EXPRESS: I served the above-named document[s] on the party[ies] named above, in the abovereferenced matter, by depositing the above document[s] in a box or other facility regularly maintained by Federal Express,

in an envelope or package designated by Federal Express, with delivery fees paid on prepaid account, addressed to the

party[ies] at the address[es] listed above. [ ]

[ ] BY FACSIMILE: On ________________, by use of fax machine number [408] 573-7864 or [408] 573-5720, I

served the above-named document[s] on the party[ies] named above, in the above-referenced matter, by transmitting by

fax machine to each party’s fax machine number listed above. The fax machine I used complied with California Rules of

Court, Rule 2003, and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2006(d), I

caused the machine to print a transmission record of the transmission, a copy of which is attached to this declaration.

[FRCP, Rule 5(b)].

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is

true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on September 26, 2007, at San Jose,

California.

 /s/ Debi Shump

Debi Shump

Case 3:06-cv-06994-WHA Document 48 Filed 09/26/2007 Page 3 of 3 Case 3:06-cv-06994-WHA Document 49 Filed 09/27/07 Page 3 of 3