Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00890/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00890-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

A Limited Liability Partnership

2 11 Including Professional Corporations

PHILLIP A. DAVIS, Cal. Bar No. 110430

3 11 pdavis@sheppardrnullin.com

333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor

4 11 Los Angeles, California 90071--1448

Telephone: 213-620-1780

5 1 Facsimile: 213-620-1398

6 11 SIIEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

A Limited Liability Partnership

7 11 Including Professional Corporations

TED C. LINDQUIST, III. Cal. Bar. No. 178523

811 tlindquist@sheppardmullin.com

Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor

9 h San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: 415-434-9100

10 11 Facsirile: 41.5-434-3947

1.1 11 Attorneys for Defendant Specially Appearing

Brilliant Manufacturing Ltd.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Procurement Partners International, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

V.

No. C 07-00890 MHP

STIPULATION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT;

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Brilliant Manufacturing Ltd., and DOES I

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

[Complaint tiled on Jan. 5, 2007 in

San Francisco Superior Court, Case

No. CGC-07-459332; Removal filed on

Feb. 12, 2007]

STIPULATION

WHEREAS plaintiff Procurer Cnt Partners International, Inc. ("PPI" or "plaintiff")

filed its Complaint in this action on January 5, 2007 in the San Francisco County Superior Court,

Case No. CGC0970459332,

tv02-WEST: L.CW\4002©7230. t STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO

RESPOND TO SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

-ICase 3:07-cv-00890-MHP Document 6 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 4
8

9

10

11

I2

18

19

20

21

?2

23

24

25

26

27

28

WHEREAS PPI delivered its Complaint to defendant Brilliant Manufacturing Ltd. 2.

("Brilliant" or "defendant") in Singapore on January 11, 2007;

3. 'WHEREAS Brilliant removed the Complaint to this Court on February 12, 2007;

4. WHEREAS the deadline for Brilliant to respond to plaintiffs Complaint is

February 20, 2007;

WHEREAS PPI and Brilliant seek additional time to allow al 5. l parties to engage in

good faith settlement discussions that involve both this action and a related action currently

pending between the parties in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore, entitled Brilliant

Manufacturing Ltd. y. Procurement Partners International, Inc., Case No. S680/20061T;

WHEREAS the parties have not previously requested extensions of time from this

Court;

7. WHEREAS PPI has agreed to ant Brilliant an extension of time up to and

including Friday March 30, 2007 (46 days) to respond to PPI's Complaint, so that all parties may

discuss possible settlement;

8. WHEREAS the parties have further agreed that this stipulation is entered into

under a full reservation of rights and without prejudice to any party, such that neither party will

argue or contend that the other party violaied any court order (including any order of the High

Court of the Republic of Singapore in suit number 5680/2006IT), or waived any sights to contest

personal jurisdiction or the appropriateness of this forum considering the existence of the

Singapore action and/or claims asserted therein, or to assert forum non conveniens as to this Court,

when it removed this case from state court to this Court, when it negotiated, communicated

regarding, and signed this stipulation and presented it to this Court. or when it negotiates and 117

STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO

RESPOND TO SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

SFODIVIS/6515099.1

Case 3:07-cv-00890-MHP Document 6 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

communicates regarding possible settlement. This includes, without limitation, any

communications or actions by the parties regarding removal, this stipulation, or regarding

settlement or Brilliant's request for an extension to respond to the Complaint herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties,

subject to the consent of this Honorable Court, that Brilliant may have an extension of time up to

and including March 30, 2007 to respond to the Complaint.

8

9

10

II

12

Dated: February _, 2007 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

Phillip A. Davis

Ted C. Lindquist, III

Attorneys for Defendant Specially Appearing

BRILLIANT MANUFACTURING LTD.

i(

Dated: February 2007 BAKER & McKENZIE LLP

By

Bruce H. J ks A

Christopher V undy

Attorneys for Plaintiff

20

21

22

PROCUREMENT PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL,

INC.

[PROPOSED]

ORDER

23

24

25

26

27

28

Upon consideration of the foregoing stipulation and good cause appearing therefor: IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that defendant BdIliant shall have up to and including March 30, 2007 to

respond to the Complaint. Accordingly, the deadlines set forth in this Court's Order Setting Initial

Case Mana=gement Conference and ADR Deadlines filed February 12, 2007 are all continued 30

davs, and the Case Nlanagernent Conference is continued to June 25, 2007.

W02-WESPLC; w1S0021)723(].1 STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO

RESPOND TO SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

SFODPOS16515€199.1

Case 3:07-cv-00890-MHP Document 6 Filed 02/27/07 Page 3 of 4
3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

1

3

14

15

16

17

1&

19

20

21

22

23

24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Order and the accompanying stipulation are

entered into under a full reservation of rights and without prejudice to any party, such that neither

party will argue or contend that the other party violated any court order (including any order of the

High Court of the Republic of Singapore in suit number S680/2006IT), or waived any rights to

contest personal jurisdiction or the appropriateness of this forum considering the existence of the

Singapore action and/or claims asserted therein, or to assert forum non conveniens as to this Court,

when it removed this case from state court to this Court, when it negotiated, communicated

regarding, and signed this stipulation and presented it to this Court, or when it negotiates and

communicates regarding possible settlement. This includes, without limitation, any

communications or actions by the parties regarding removal, this stipulation, or regarding

settlement or Brilliant's request for an extension to respond to the Complaint herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Brilliant's counsel has signed this stipulation under a

Special Appearance, on the basis that Brilliant is not submitting itself or this dispute to the

J

risdiction of this Court, and reserving Brilliant's right to contend that Brilliant is not subject to

personal jurisdiction in this Court and that this Court is an inconvenient forum or is not the

appropriate forum.

Dated: February, 2007

By

JUDGE MARILYN HALL PATEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

25

26

27

28

-4-

02-WEST:W'WV 400207230 I STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO

RESPOND TO SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

S FOOM S/6515499.1

22

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:07-cv-00890-MHP Document 6 Filed 02/27/07 Page 4 of 4