Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03450/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-03450-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1121 Trademark 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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 06-03450

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 7/27/06**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CLARUS TRANSPHASE SCIENTIFIC, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

Q-RAY, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-03450

ORDER1 GRANTING MOTION TO

CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

[re: docket no. 19]

Defendants Q-ray Inc., QT, Inc., Bio-Ray, Inc., Bio-Metal, Inc., Que Te Park, and Jung

Joo Park (collectively “Defendants”) move to continue the hearing date on Plaintiff Clarus

Transphase Scientific Inc.’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Presently, Plaintiff’s motion for

a preliminary injunction is scheduled for hearing on August 11, 2006, the same day as

Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer venue

is scheduled for hearing. Plaintiff opposes the motion to continue the hearing date. However, if

the Court does move the hearing date, Plaintiff requests that the Court also continue the hearing

date for the motion to dismiss in order to allow Plaintiff to conduct discovery on the issue of

Case 5:06-cv-03450-JF Document 45 Filed 07/27/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Case No. C 06-03450

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(JFLC1)

jurisdiction. The Court has considered this matter without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7-1(b).

In the interest of judicial efficiency, the question of whether the Court has personal

jurisdiction over some or all of the Defendants is a preliminary decision that should be made

prior to deciding the motion for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the Court will grant the

instant motion to continue the hearing date on Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. 

The Court will reschedule the hearing date for this motion to September 8, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. 

The Court will not grant Plaintiff’s request to continue the date of Defendants’ motion to

dismiss or to transfer. However, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request to conduct discovery on

the issue of jurisdiction. Discovery as to jurisdiction may begin immediately, and counsel are

directed to cooperate in order that both sides may prepare adequately for the August 11, 2006

hearing. The parties may submit supplemental briefing with respect to Defendants’ motion to

dismiss or to transfer not to exceed fifteen (15) pages and not later than 5:00 pm on Wednesday,

August 9, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 27, 2006

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-03450-JF Document 45 Filed 07/27/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Case No. C 06-03450

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

John C. Gorman jgorman@gormanmiller.com

Craig Alan Hansen chansen@gormanmiller.com

Michael J. Hoisington mhoisington@higgslaw.com,

Ross Kimbarovsky rossk@uhlaw.com

Charles F. Reidelbach, Jr. reidelbach@higgslaw.com,

Phillip Samouris samouris@higgslaw.com, moklestadn@higgslaw.com

Richard Henry Tilghman, IV rhtilghman@uhlaw.com 

Case 5:06-cv-03450-JF Document 45 Filed 07/27/06 Page 3 of 3