Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01669/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01669-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 28:1391 Personal Injury

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARE ESCENTUALS BEAUTY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

L’OREAL USA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-07-1669 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN

PART STIPULATED REQUEST FOR

CONTINUANCE OF HEARING AND FOR

ORDER MODIFYING PRE-TRIAL AND

TRIAL DATES

Before the Court is the “Stipulated Request for Continuance of Hearing for Motion to

Dismiss and for Order Modifying Pre-trial and Trial Dates,” filed January 31, 2008. By said

stipulation, the parties seek to: (a) extend by thirty days certain deadlines related to

jurisdictional discovery and briefing on defendant L’Oreal S.A.’s motion to dismiss,

(b) continue the hearing on said motion from March 28, 2008 to May 2, 2008, (c) extend all

other pre-trial dates and deadlines by approximately four months, and (d) continue the trial

date from January 29, 2009 to June 29, 2009. 

With respect to the deadlines related to jurisdictional discovery and briefing, the

parties state the requested extensions will “allow Defendants time to complete their

document production, and . . . allow the parties time to attempt to resolve disagreements

regarding Plaintiff’s Jurisdictional Discovery Requests without the need for Court

Case 3:07-cv-01669-MMC Document 50 Filed 02/06/08 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

2

intervention.” (See Stipulated Request at 1:17-19.) The parties fail to explain, however, 

why the limited extensions in that regard will necessitate a four-month extension of all other

pre-trial dates and deadlines and a five-month extension of the trial date.

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the stipulated request in part; specifically

the Court EXTENDS the deadlines related to jurisdictional discovery and briefing, as

stipulated by the parties, and CONTINUES the hearing on defendant L’Oreal S.A.’s motion

to dismiss to May 2, 2008. 

In all other respects, the motion is hereby DENIED without prejudice, for the reason

the parties have failed to show good cause exists for extension of such pre-trial dates and

deadlines and the trial date. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) (providing pretrial order “shall not be

modified except upon a showing of good cause”). Such denial is without prejudice to the

parties’ providing a more detailed showing with respect to such additional relief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01669-MMC Document 50 Filed 02/06/08 Page 2 of 2