Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02266/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02266-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Plaintiffs failed to efile this application.

2

 (NW’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Continue Deposition Discovery

Beyond the Deadline, Docket Item No. 364; Tempco’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte

Application to Continue Deposition Discovery Beyond the Deadline, Docket Item No. 366.)

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Advanced Microtherm, Inc., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Norman Wright Mechanical Equipment

Corporation, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 04-02266 JW 

ORDER VACATING THE COURT’S

SEPTEMBER 21, 2007 ORDER

GRANTING EXTENSION OF

DISCOVERY DEADLINE

On September 17, 2007, John Karamanos, Advanced Microtherm, Inc., and Hvac Sales, Inc.

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeared at the Court’s regular Law and Motion calendar and attempted

to file an Ex Parte Application for Order Extending the Discovery Cut-Off, asking for a 100 day

extension of the discovery deadline.1 Plaintiffs were informed by the Deputy that the motion must

be filed pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of Court. On September 20, 2007, Defendants Norman

Wright Mechanical Equipment Corporation (“NW”) and Tempco, Inc. (“Tempco”) (collectively,

“Defendants”) filed oppositions to Plaintiffs’ application.2

Case 5:04-cv-02266-JW Document 372 Filed 09/25/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 September 21, 2007, the Court ruled on Plaintiffs’ motion. (See Docket Item No. 368.)

The Court was under the impression that the Special Master was still on vacation and was

unavailable to hear the motion. Plaintiffs represented to the Court that there was urgency in the

matter, which required the Court to rule immediately. In fact, Plaintiffs continually called the Court

Room Deputy to inquire about their motion, even up to Thursday, September 20, 2007, the eve of

the hearing conducted by the Special Master.

Plaintiffs should have raised this motion before the Special Master. Indeed, the Special

Master heard oral arguments on the motion and issued his order on the same day the Court issued its

Order. The parties failed to inform the Court that the motion was concurrently being adjudicated by

the Special Master. Plaintiffs failed to withdraw their motion before the Court upon learning that the

Special Master was available to address their motion.

In light of the conflicting rulings, the Court VACATES its September 21, 2007 Order

Granting Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to Extend Discovery. The Court defers to the Special

Master’s ruling as he has been appointed to manage all discovery in this case. The Special Master

has given the parties ten days to file any objections. The Court will examine any objections properly

filed pursuant to Civil Local Rules of Court.

In light of this Order, the Stipulation Re: Order For Hearing on Shortened Time for

Defendants’ Motion to Vacate Order Granting Extension of Discovery Deadline is DENIED. (See

Docket Item No. 370.)

Dated: September 25, 2007 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02266-JW Document 372 Filed 09/25/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Bruce Harry Winkelman bwinkelman@Craig-Winkelman.com

David B. Abramowitz dabramowitz@lordbissell.com

Dennis P. Fitzsimons dfitzsimons@bjg.com

Ethan L Shaw elshaw@moorelandrey.com

Flora F Vigo fvigo@omm.com

Gabriel G. Green ggreen@lordbissell.com

George Fred Salamy george.salamy@mccurdylawyers.com

Janette George Leonidou jleonidou@alr-law.com

Jeffrey Gordon Nevin jnevin@ecplslaw.com

Jill Battilega Rowe jrowe@cwclaw.com

John Morwick Ross jross@cwclaw.com

John T. Williams jwilliams@lordbissell.com

Joseph M. Alioto jmalioto@aliotolaw.com

Julie Dawn Wood jwood@omm.com

Kenneth Lawrence Mahaffey kmahaffey@pecklaw.com

Lisa Dritsas Wright lwright@alr-law.com

Lisa Dritsas Wright lwright@alr-law.com

Maria Giardina maria.giardina@sdma.com

Mark Ewell Ellis mellis@ecplslaw.com

Matthew A. Fischer matthew.fischer@sdma.com

Maureen Ellen McTague maureen_sandoval@gensler.com

Merrit Jones mjones@cwclaw.com

Michael Frederick Tubach mtubach@omm.com

Paul B. Lahaderne paul.lahaderne@sdma.com

Peter Michael Hart p.hart@wrightrobinson.com

Russell F. Brasso brasso@foremanandbrasso.com

Stephen D. Kaus skaus@cwclaw.com

Steven Ellis Conigliaro sconigliaro@omm.com

Stuart E. Jones sjones@wrightrobinson.com

Thomas Charles Tagliarini tagliarinilaw@aol.com

Tommy L Yeates1 tyeates@moorelandrey.com

Zane D Negrych zanenegrych@sbcglobal.net

Dated: September 25, 2007 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/ JW Chambers 

Elizabeth Garcia

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-02266-JW Document 372 Filed 09/25/07 Page 3 of 3