Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00069/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00069-8/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 

STIPULATED REQUEST RE: MOTION TO DISMISS SAC CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00069-EMC 

Harrison J. Frahn IV (Bar No. 206822) 

hfrahn@stblaw.com 

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 

2475 Hanover Street 

Palo Alto, California 94304 

Telephone: (650) 251-5000 

Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 

Attorney for Defendant Light In The Box Limited 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

E & E CO., LTD., a California corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

LIGHT IN THE BOX LIMITED, a Hong 

Kong corporation, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:15-CV-00069-EMC 

Judge Edward M. Chen 

STIPULATED REQUEST AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING 

TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO 

DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT 

 

Plaintiff E & E Co., Ltd., (“Plaintiff” or “E&E”) and Defendant Light In The Box 

Limited (“Defendant” or “LITB”) (collectively, the “Parties”), hereby stipulate to a one week 

extension of the deadline for Defendant to file and serve its Reply in Support of the Motion to 

Dismiss from January 19, 2016 to January 26, 2016. The Parties’ stipulation is based on the 

following facts: 

1. Plaintiff E&E filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in the above captioned 

case against Defendant LITB on October 14, 2015 (Dkt. No. 60) asserting claims for 

(1) Copyright Infringement; (2) False Designation of Origin and False Advertising (15 U.S.C. § 

1125(a)); and (3) California Unfair Competition (“UCL Claim”); 

2. Defendant LITB filed a motion to dismiss E&E’s claims for False Advertising and 

the UCL Claim on December 28, 2015 (Dkt. No. 72). With respect to the UCL Claim, LITB 

Case 3:15-cv-00069-EMC Document 76 Filed 01/19/16 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 - 

STIPULATED REQUEST RE: MOTION TO DISMISS SAC CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00069-EMC

argued that the SAC’s failure to identify the prong or prongs of the California Business and 

Professions Code being invoked, as well as the specific acts forming the basis of the alleged 

violation, is insufficient to satisfy the notice requirements of Rule 8; 

3. Plaintiff E&E filed an Opposition to LITB’s Motion to Dismiss the SAC on 

January 11, 2016 (Dkt. No. 74). In its Opposition, E&E expressed a willingness to dismiss its 

claim for False Advertising, but maintains that the UCL Claim was sufficiently pled. To resolve 

any doubt, E&E expressed a willingness to further amend the SAC to identify the specific prongs 

and acts forming the basis of the UCL Claim; 

4. In light of E&E’s expressed willingness to amend the SAC with respect to both the 

False Advertising claim and the UCL Claim, LITB offered to stipulate to such an amendment. 

E&E requested that LITB identify any further perceived deficiencies in the proposed draft “Third 

Amended Complaint” attached to E&E’s Opposition as Exhibit A (“Opp. Ex. A”) (Dkt. No. 74-1). 

LITB has requested a one week extension to consider whether E&E’s proposed amendment, Opp. 

Ex. A, should be subject to a further motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). If LITB 

decides not to challenge the proposed amended complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), it has 

agreed to withdraw the pending Motion to Dismiss the SAC, enter into a stipulation permitting 

E&E to file a Third Amended Complaint as proposed in Opp. Ex. A, and has further agreed that it 

will not file any further motion to dismiss the contemplated Third Amended Complaint under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). If LITB still believes that the proposed document in Opp. Ex. A contains 

pleading deficiencies, LITB has agreed that it will notify E&E of the alleged deficiencies in 

advance of stipulating to an amendment of the pleadings, in order to provide E&E with the 

opportunity to consider whether it needs to cure any such alleged deficiency. As such, the Parties 

request more time to evaluate that course of action before expending any further Party or Court 

time and expense litigating the present motion; 

5. The Parties submit that the requested extension will have no effect on the scheduled 

date for the Hearing on the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, currently set for 

February 11, 2016; 

Case 3:15-cv-00069-EMC Document 76 Filed 01/19/16 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 - 

STIPULATED REQUEST RE: MOTION TO DISMISS SAC CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00069-EMC

6. The Parties submit that this agreement was made in the spirit of conserving judicial 

resources and is in the best interests of the Parties. 

The Parties, therefore, respectfully request that the deadline for Defendant to file 

and serve its Reply in Support of the Motion to Dismiss be reset from January 19, 2016, to 

January 26, 2016. 

Dated: January 19, 2016 SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 

By: /s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV 

Harrison J. Frahn IV 

 hfrahn@stblaw.com 

 Attorney for Defendant, Light In The Box Limited

 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 

By: /s/ John Shaeffer 

John Shaeffer 

jshaeffer@foxrothschild.com 

Ashe Puri 

apuri@foxrothschild.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, E & E CO., LTD. 

Attestation: Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer attests that concurrence in the filing 

of this document has been obtained from the signatories to this document. 

Case 3:15-cv-00069-EMC Document 76 Filed 01/19/16 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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR STIPULATED REQUEST RE: MOTION TO DISMISS SAC CASE NO. 3:15-CV-00069-EMC 

 [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that: 

1. The deadline for Defendant Light In The Box Limited to file and serve its Reply in 

Support of the Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint shall be reset from January 19, 

2016, to January 26, 2016. 

Pursuant to Stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January ___, 2016 _________________________________ 

 Edward M. Chen, 

 United States District Judge 

2519

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:15-cv-00069-EMC Document 76 Filed 01/19/16 Page 4 of 4