Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02838/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02838-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Collabrx, Inc.
Plaintiff
The Jackson Laboratory
Defendant

Document Text:

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON BRIEFING SCHEDULES 

FOR PENDING MOTIONS 

Case No. 3:16-cv-02838-EMC 

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

Jeffrey W. Shopoff (Bar No. 46278)

Gregory S. Cavallo (Bar No. 173270) 

James M. Robinson (Bar No. 238063) 

SHOPOFF CAVALLO & KIRSCH LLP 

601 Montgomery Street, Suite 1110 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 984-1975 

Facsimile: (415) 984-1978 

Attorneys for Plaintiff, 

CollabRx, Inc. 

Andrew N. Thomases (Bar No. 177339)

Henry Y. Huang (Bar No. 252832) 

ROPES & GRAY LLP 

1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor 

East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284 

Tel: (650) 617-4000 

Fax: (650) 617-4090 

Attorneys for Defendant, 

The Jackson Laboratory 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

COLLABRX, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

THE JACKSON LABORATORY, a Maine 

non-profit corporation, 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 3:16-cv-02838-EMC 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER ON BRIEFING SCHEDULES 

FOR PENDING MOTIONS 

(modified)

Case 3:16-cv-02838-EMC Document 19 Filed 06/15/16 Page 1 of 3
1 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON BRIEFING SCHEDULES 

FOR PENDING MOTIONS 

Case No. 3:16-cv-02838-EMC 

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

STIPULATION 

Plaintiff CollabRx, Inc. (“CollabRx”) and Defendant The Jackson Laboratory (“JAX”), 

through their counsel, hereby stipulate and agree that: 

WHEREAS, JAX filed a notice of removal of this action on May 26, 2016 (ECF No. 1); 

WHEREAS, JAX filed a motion to dismiss CollabRx’s Complaint on June 2, 2016, with 

a response due by June 16, 2016, a reply due by June 23, 2016, and a hearing date of July 7, 

2016 (ECF Nos. 10-11); 

WHEREAS, CollabRx filed a motion to remand on June 10, 2016, with a response due 

by June 24, 2016, a reply due by July 1, 2016, and a hearing date of July 28, 2016 (ECF No. 

17); 

WHEREAS, the parties have conferred and agreed to have both JAX’s motion to dismiss 

and CollabRx’s motion to remand heard at the same time on July 28, 2016, the currently noticed 

hearing date for CollabRx’s motion to remand; 

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to brief both pending motions on the same schedule 

with new deadlines to accommodate planned vacations by counsel for both parties and the 

Independence Day holiday, while permitting the Court time to review the parties’ submissions 

in advance of the currently scheduled July 28, 2016 hearing date; 

WHEREAS, no prior time modifications have been requested or made in this case, no 

case schedule has been entered, and the parties’ agreed time modifications would not affect any 

case schedule other than moving the currently noticed hearing date for JAX’s motion to dismiss; 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate, 

subject to the Court’s approval, that JAX’s motion to dismiss and CollabRx’s motion to remand 

be heard at the same time on July 28, 2016 (or another date of the Court’s choosing), that the 

deadline for oppositions to both pending motions be extended to July 1, 2016, and that the 

deadline for replies be extended to July 14, 2016.

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Case 3:16-cv-02838-EMC Document 19 Filed 06/15/16 Page 2 of 3
2 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER ON BRIEFING SCHEDULES 

FOR PENDING MOTIONS 

Case No. 3:16-cv-02838-EMC 

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

Dated: June 14, 2016 By /s/ Gregory S. Cavallo

Gregory S. Cavallo 

SHOPOFF CAVALLO & KIRSCH LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

COLLABRX, INC. 

/s/ Andrew Thomases

Andrew Thomases 

ROPES & GRAY LLP 

Attorneys for Defendant 

THE JACKSON LABORATORY

In accordance with Local Rule 5-1, the filer of this document hereby attests that the 

concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories hereto. 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: __________________________ _______________________________ 

 Edward M. Chen 

 United States District Judge 

Oppositions to both motions shall be filed by 7/1/16. Replies shall be filed by 7/14/16.

The motion to remand remains to be heard on 7/28/16 at 1:30 

p.m. The 7/7/16 hearing 

on the motion to dismiss is vacated and to be reset if the 

Court denies the motion to remand. 

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:16-cv-02838-EMC Document 19 Filed 06/15/16 Page 3 of 3