Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04330/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-04330-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

ORDER RE: VERIGY'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION—No. C-07-04330 RMW

MAG

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 7/23/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

VERIGY US, INC. ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROMI OMAR MAYDER; WESLEY

MAYDER; SILICON TEST SYSTEMS, INC.;

and SILICON TEST SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Defendants.

No. C-07-04330 RMW

ORDER RE: VERIGY'S ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION

[Re Docket No. 264]

To date, defendants Romi Mayder ("R. Mayder"); Wesley Mayder ("W. Mayder"); and

Silicon Test Systems, Inc. and Silicon Test Solutions, LLC ("the STS entities") have filed two

motions that are docketed as summary judgment motions. The first, Docket No. 230, is a motion for

summary judgment as to the claims against defendant W. Mayder. This motion, currently set for

hearing on August 8, 2008, is accompanied by a motion by defendants for sanctions against

plaintiffs for refusing to voluntarily dismiss claims against W. Mayder. 

The second motion, filed on July 7, 2008, seeks summary judgment on plaintiff's ninth cause

of action for false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, but primarily asks the court to

modify the preliminary injunction that was entered against defendants on February 29, 2008 and

Case 5:07-cv-04330-RMW Document 272 Filed 07/23/08 Page 1 of 4
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

ORDER RE: VERIGY'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION—No. C-07-04330 RMW

MAG 2

extended by the court's May 22, 2008 order finding defendants R. Mayder and the STS entities in

contempt of the temporary restraining order ("TRO") that was in effect until the issuance of the

preliminary injunction. See Docket Nos. 171, 212. 

Plaintiff has filed a motion for administrative relief asking the court clarify whether the

portion defendants' second motion for summary judgment that asks for modification of the

preliminary injunction is a request for reconsideration of the court's February 29, 2008 and May 22,

2008 orders. Plaintiff asserts that this portion of the second motion is a motion for reconsideration

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59. Under Civil L.R. 7-9, the non-moving party need not

respond to a request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration unless the court sets a briefing

schedule. Civil L.R. 7-9(d). Further, plaintiff asserts that a motion for reconsideration is untimely

as Rule 59 requires a party to move to alter or amend a judgment within 10 days. Plaintiff asks in

the alternative, that the briefing schedule on defendants' second motion be modified to provide two

weeks of additional time for plaintiff to respond to the motion, as it is accompanied by voluminous

supporting materials.

Defendants oppose the administrative motion, asserting that the request for modification of

the preliminary injunction set forth in the second motion is not a motion under Rule 59, rather it is a

motion for relief under Rule 60(b). Rule 60(b) sets forth the grounds for relief from an order. These

grounds include "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been

discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)," that "applying [a judgment]

prospectively is no longer equitable" or "any other reason that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. P.

60(b)(2), (5) & (6). Unlike Rule 59, Rule 60(b) does not set a fixed time for moving for relief,

providing instead that "[a] motion under Rule 60(b) must be made within a reasonable time." Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b).

The court agrees that the disputed portion of defendants' motion appears to be one made

under Rule 60(b) rather than one made under Rule 59 and thus is not subject to challenge on the

grounds of timeliness. Further, because they are seeking a motion under Rule 60(b), defendants do

not appear to be required by Civil L.R. 7-9(a) to file a motion requesting leave to file their motion. 

Case 5:07-cv-04330-RMW Document 272 Filed 07/23/08 Page 2 of 4
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

ORDER RE: VERIGY'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION—No. C-07-04330 RMW

MAG 3

The court thus concludes that defendants have properly noticed their motion and plaintiff is

required to respond. The court is sensitive, however, (1) to plaintiff's request for an extension of

time to respond to defendants' second motion, given the additional references upon which

defendants rely and (2) to defendants' reluctance to delay their currently-scheduled December 8,

2008 trial date. Defendants indicate that they are willing to reschedule the hearing for their pending

motions to August 29, 2008; plaintiff asserts that the extension it seeks will not affect the trial

schedule in this case. Accordingly, the court will make the following modifications to the current

briefing and hearing dates with respect to defendants' motions:

1. Defendants' first motion for summary judgment and the accompanying motion for sanctions,

currently scheduled for August 8, 2008, shall be rescheduled to August 29, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. 

The briefing schedule for these motions will not change, as plaintiff has already submitted its

oppositions. Defendants' replies to plaintiff's oppositions will be due on or before July 25,

2008.

2. Defendant's second motion for summary judgment will also be rescheduled to August 29,

2008 at 9:00 a.m. The briefing schedule for the second motion for summary judgment shall

be as follows: plaintiff's opposition shall be due on or before August 8, 2008; defendants'

opposition shall be due on or before August 15, 2008. 

DATED: 7/23/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-04330-RMW Document 272 Filed 07/23/08 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER RE: VERIGY'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION—No. C-07-04330 RMW

MAG 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Melinda Morton mmorton@be-law.com

Daniel J. Bergeson dbergeson@be-law.com

John W. Fowler jfowler@be-law.com

Donald P. Gagliardi dgagliardi@be-law.com

Michael William Stebbins mstebbins@be-law.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Jack Russo jrusso@computerlaw.com 

Tim C. Hale thale@computerlaw.com

John A.D. Kelley jkelley@computerlaw.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 7/23/08 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:07-cv-04330-RMW Document 272 Filed 07/23/08 Page 4 of 4