Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02352/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02352-0/pdf.json

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

---

Case No. 16-cv-02352-HRL

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF PHOTONICS CORPORATION’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

10476313.DOC 1

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

Edward A. Kraus, SBN 162043

Kathryn E. Barrett, SBN 162100

SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP

50 W. San Fernando Street, Suite 750

San Jose, CA 95113

Tele: (408) 573-5700

Fax: (408) 573-5701

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ACCELER-RAY, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ACCELER-RAY, INC.

Plaintiff,

vs.

IPG PHOTONICS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 16-cv-02352-HRL

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

RE CONTINUANCE OF PHOTONICS 

CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS, 

OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO 

TRANSFER VENUE 

[Local Rule 6-2(a)]

Current Hearing Date: July 19, 2016

Time: 10:00 am.

Courtroom 2, 5th Floor

280 S. First Street,

San Jose, CA 95113

Proposed Hearing Date: July 26, 2016

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), Plaintiff Acceler-Ray, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant IPG 

Photonics Corporation (“Defendant”), by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as 

follows:

STIPULATION

TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND TO 

THEIR RESPECTIVE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

1. On May 6, 2016, Defendant filed its Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion 

to Transfer Venue, Docket [8].

Case 5:16-cv-02352-HRL Document 21 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 16-cv-02352-HRL

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF PHOTONICS CORPORATION’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

10476313.DOC 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. On May 13, 2016 the court notified the parties that the Case Management Conference

and the Motion Hearing (In Re: ECF No. [8]) were vacated and that the case was being re-assigned.

3. On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff filed its Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, or, in the 

Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue.

4. On May 27, 2016, Defendant filed its Reply to the Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, 

or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue.

5. On June 6, 2016, the court issued its Reassignment Order, re-assigning this case to 

Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd for all further proceedings with instructions to re-notice the 

hearing before Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd.

6. On June 7, 2016, the court notified the parties that the hearing on the Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue has been re-set for July 19, 2016

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA.

7. Plaintiff is requesting a continuance of the hearing set by the court on July 19, 2016 

because of a pre-paid planned vacation, and unavailable beginning July 12, 2016 returning on July 

25, 2016.

8. Local Rule 6-2(a) provides parties may file a stipulation, requesting an order changing 

time that would affect the date of an event or deadline already fixed by Court Order, or that would 

accelerate or extend time frame set in the Local Rules or in the Federal Rules. 

///

Case 5:16-cv-02352-HRL Document 21 Filed 06/15/16 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 16-cv-02352-HRL

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OF PHOTONICS CORPORATION’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

10476313.DOC 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

9. Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2(a), the parties hereby stipulate and agree that Defendant’s 

Motion to Dismiss, or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue be heard on July 26, 2016 at 

10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2, 5th Floor, San Jose, CA, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.

10. The parties believe no other filing dates scheduled in this case will be affected by this 

modification.

Dated: June 14, 2016 SILICON VALLEY LAW GROUP

/s/ Edward A. Kraus_______________

Edward A. Kraus, attorneys for

Acceler-Ray, Inc.

Dated: June 14, 2016 HOPKINS & CARLEY

/s/ Jennifer Coleman______________

Jennifer Coleman, attorneys for

IPG Photonics Corporation

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:___________________ _______________________________

Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

United States District Court

Northern District Court

June 15, 2016

Case 5:16-cv-02352-HRL Document 21 Filed 06/15/16 Page 3 of 3