Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01052/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01052-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright 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

{00308889v1} -1-

Stipulation And Order Permitting Filing Of Amended Complaint

(Case No. C08-01052 MHP)

STUART C. CLARK (SBN 124152)

clark@carrferrell.com

CHRISTINE S. WATSON (SBN 218006)

cwatson@carrferrell.com

CARR & FERRELL LLP

2200 Geng Road

Palo Alto, California 94303

Telephone: (650) 812-3400

Facsimile: (650) 812-3444

Attorneys for Plaintiff

I. MICHAEL ROSS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

I. MICHAEL ROSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

TOMLAB OPTIMIZATION AB,

TOMLAB OPTIMIZATION, INC.,

and DOES 1 through 20,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C08-01052 MHP

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER PERMITTING FILING

OF AMENDED COMPLAINT

[N. D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-12, 7-11]

WHEREAS:

A. Plaintiff I. Michael Ross (“Ross”) wishes to further amend the complaint to add 

claims against an additional defendant, Anil Rao;

B. Ross has already exercised his right to amend the complaint once under Rule 

15(a)(1), and therefore requires Court approval to file a further amended complaint;

C. Defendant Tomlab Organization, Inc. (“Tomlab”) is willing to stipulate to the filing 

of a further amended complaint;

D. Ross is unable to obtain the stipulation of defendant Tomlab Organization, A.B.,

Case 3:08-cv-01052-MHP Document 21 Filed 05/09/08 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

{00308889v1} -2-

Stipulation And Order Permitting Filing Of Amended Complaint

(Case No. C08-01052 MHP)

since it has not yet been served and is accordingly not yet an active party represented by counsel;

E. Ross and Tomlab Organization, Inc., as the active parties to the litigation (the 

“Active Parties”), are therefore the only parties capable of executing this stipulation:

NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Active Parties,

through their respective counsel, that Ross may file a further amended complaint asserting claims 

against Anil Rao.

Dated: May , 2008 CARR & FERRELL LLP

By:

STUART C. CLARK

Attorneys for plaintiff I. Michael Ross 

Dated: May 8 , 2008 NEWHOUSE & ASSOCIATES

By:

DAVID E. NEWHOUSE

Attorneys for defendants Tomlab Optimization, Inc. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May , 2008

 MARILYN HALL PATEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7

/s/ Stuart C. Clark

David E. 

Newhouse

Digitally signed by David E. Newhouse 

DN: cn=David E. Newhouse, 

o=Newhouse / Associates, ou, 

email=den@attycubed.com, c=US 

Date: 2008.05.08 10:19:17 -07'00'

8

9

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:08-cv-01052-MHP Document 21 Filed 05/09/08 Page 2 of 2