Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02306/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02306-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 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

 1

STIPULATION RE: AIRON’S MOTION FOR PARTICULARITY

Case No. C06-02306 MMC

Konrad L. Trope, Esq. SBN 133214

Novo Law Group, P.C.

University Towers

4199 Campus Drive, Suite 550

Irvine, California 92612

(949) 509-6531 (tel)

(949) 509-6532 (fax)

Attorneys for Plaintiff PACIFIC INFORMATION RESOURCES, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PACIFIC INFORMATION RESOURCES,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIANA MUSSELMAN, individually, et. al., 

Defendants.

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C06-02306 MMC

[Before the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney

Courtroom: 7]

[PROPOSED] JOINT STIPULATION

AND ORDER APPROVING SAID

STIPULATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL

RULE 6-2 RE FILING OF OPPOSITION

TO, AND REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT AIRON’S MOTION FOR

MORE PARTICULARITY UNDER

FRCP 9(B).

2 Amend Comp. Filed : September 11, 2006 nd

Prop. Reply Due Date: October 31, 2006

Hearing Date: November 3, 2006

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Discovery Cut-Off Date: None

Trial Date: None

Rule 16 Conference : December 15, 2006

Plaintiff Pacific Information Resources, Inc. (“Pacific”) and Defendant Airon Corporation

(“Airon”), parties in the above-captioned lawsuit, hereby stipulate that in the interests of fairness

and equity, and in promotion of resolving Defendant Airon’s Motion for More Particularity

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 80 Filed 10/31/06 Page 1 of 4
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

STIPULATION RE: AIRON’S MOTION FOR PARTICULARITY

Case No. C06-02306 MMC

Under FRCP 9(b) on the merits, the parties hereby state the following facts and circumstances,

pursuant to Local Rule 7-12 and present the resulting stipulation, subject to this court’s approval

in accordance with Local Rule 6-2:

1. Counsel for Pacific timely filed an Opposition to Defendant Musselman’s Motion

for a More Definite Statement Under FRCP 12(e);

2. Counsel for Defendant Airon filed a Joinder to Musselman’s Motion. Airon’s

Joinder also contained a Motion for More Particularity Under FRCP 9(b).

3. Counsel for Plaintiff Pacific inadvertently misread Airon’s Joinder and did not

realize the necessity of filing a separate Opposition to Airon’s Motion. Upon

receiving Airon’s Reply, Pacific’s Counsel realized his error and immediately

contacted Airon’s Counsel on October 23 seeking a resolution to this predicament.

 4. In the interests of having Airon’s Motion for More Particularity resolved on the

merits, Counsel for Airon graciously agreed to allow Pacific to file an Opposition,

upon the condition that Airon could file a reply or response thereto.

5. This stipulation should not in any way cause any delay or modification to the

scheduled hearing in this matter of November 3, 2006. 

6. This court has, on two prior occasions, previously “continued” the Rule 16 Case

Management Conference owing to logistical difficulties in Plaintiff locating and

serving all Defendants.

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 80 Filed 10/31/06 Page 2 of 4
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

STIPULATION RE: AIRON’S MOTION FOR PARTICULARITY

Case No. C06-02306 MMC

7. Plaintiff and certain Defendants have stipulated to extensions to Respond to the

Complaint as they complete settlement discussions. These settlement discussions

have been productive and stipulated dismissals of certain defendants are shortly

forthcoming. Otherwise, there have been no other continuances of any kind.

8. Thus, counsel for Pacific and Airon, stipulate, subject to court approval, as

follows:

A. Pacific shall file and serve this Stipulation, executed by counsel for Pacific

and Airon, along with Pacific’s Opposition to Airon’s Motion not later

than October 26, 2006;

B. Airon shall file and serve by e-mail a brief in reply to Pacific’s Opposition

not later than October 31, 2006;

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

Dated: October 25, 2006 NOVO LAW GROUP, P.C.

BY:

Konrad L. Trope, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff PACIFIC

INFORMATION RESOURCES,

INC.

/s/

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 80 Filed 10/31/06 Page 3 of 4
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

STIPULATION RE: AIRON’S MOTION FOR PARTICULARITY

Case No. C06-02306 MMC

Dated: October 2_, 2006 BADGLEY MULLINS LAW GROUP

By:_________________________________

Duncan Turner, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant AIRON

CORP.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED,

Dated: October ___, 2006 By:_____________________________

Maxine M. Chesney, District Court Judge

United States District Court for the

Northern District of California

31

/s/

Case 3:06-cv-02306-MMC Document 80 Filed 10/31/06 Page 4 of 4