Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06326/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06326-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Diamond Electronics
Defendant
One Diamond Electronics, Inc.
Defendant
Yahoo! Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 C06-06326MMC 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DUE DATE OF REPLY BY ONE DIAMOND ELECTRONIC, 

INC. TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

Robinson & Wood, Inc. 

227 North First Street 

San Jose, CA 95113 

(408) 298-7120 

F/N: 15172 

ARTHUR J. CASEY [SBN 123273] 

COLIN G. MCCARTHY [SBN 191410] 

ROBINSON & WOOD, INC. 

227 North First Street 

San Jose, CA 95113 

Telephone: (408) 298-7120 

Facsimile: (408) 298-0477 

MERRITT CLEMENTS [SBN 04369500] 

DANIEL W. LANFEAR [SBN 00784443] 

STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP 

Bank of America Plaza 

300 Convent Street, Suite 900 

San Antonio, TX 78205-3603 

Attorneys for Defendant, 

One Diamond Electronics, Inc., dba 

Diamond Electronics 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT COURT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

YAHOO!, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ONE DIAMOND ELECTRONICS, INC., 

dba DIAMOND ELECTRONICS, 

Defendants.

Case No. C06-06326 MMC 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO 

CONTINUE DUE DATE OF REPLY BY 

ONE DIAMOND ELECTRONICS, INC. TO 

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS; 

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING 

 Pursuant to the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney’s Standing Order 6, ONE DIAMOND 

ELECTRONICS, INC., dba DIAMOND ELECTRONICS, defendant in the above-entitled action, 

hereby submits a stipulation and proposed order for the continuation by one court day of the time 

by which it is required to reply to the opposition to its motion to dismiss. The reply is currently 

due on Friday, February 16, 2007 and would be due on Tuesday, February 20, 2007 pursuant to 

this stipulation and proposed order. The parties also stipulate and hereby request permission that 

Yahoo! Inc. be given leave to file a five page surreply only on issues related the February 12, 2007 

Case 3:06-cv-06326-MMC Document 30 Filed 02/16/07 Page 1 of 3
2 C06-06326 MMC 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DUE DATE OF REPLY BY ONE DIAMOND ELECTRONICS, 

INC. TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

Robinson & Wood, Inc. 

227 North First Street 

San Jose, CA 95113 

(408) 298-7120 

decision by the Honorable John Primomo of the United States District Court, Western Texas, San 

Antonio Division to remand a companion case to state court. 

 Good cause exists for the stipulation in this case because Dan Pascucci and Bryan Sinclair, 

counsel for Plaintiff Yahoo! Inc. have stipulated to the one day extension. The need for the one 

day continuance is based on the following: 

 1. The motion to dismiss and the opposition raise and discuss complex matters on issues 

of subject matter jurisdiction; 

2. Defendant One Diamond Electronics, Inc. is responding to Plaintiff Yahoo! Inc.’s 25 

page opposition which requires the verification and interpretation of over four dozen case cites, 

many of which were not addressed in its motion, as well as responding to a declaration with over 

400 pages of exhibits; 

3. Lead counsel for One Diamond Electronics, Inc., Merritt Clements, is unavailable to 

respond to the opposition filed on Friday February 9, 2007 because has depositions on unrelated 

matters this week which were scheduled before the briefing schedule was set; 

 4. On February 12, 2007 the the Honorable John Primomo of the United States District 

Court, Western Texas, San Antonio Division recommended that the companion case in Texas, 

One Diamond Electronics, Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc., SA-06-CA-879-OG, be remanded and the parties 

need to assess and address the effect of this recent development on the issues before this Court; 

 5. Granting the one court day extension which has been stipulated to by Yahoo! Inc. will 

not prejudice the opposing party and will benefit this Court by resulting in a more cogent brief by 

avoiding the lack of clarity that often accompanies pleadings prepared without the benefit of 

additional time, and this is especially true in this case for One Diamond Electronics, Inc; and 

 6. Because issues will be raised in Defendant One Diamond Electronics, Inc.’s Reply 

which address Judge Primomo’s ruling, made after Plaintiff Yahoo! Inc. filed its opposition, 

Plaintiff has requested and Defendant One Diamond Electronics, Inc does not object to leave to 

file a five (5) page surreply on these issues no later than February 26, 2007.

Case 3:06-cv-06326-MMC Document 30 Filed 02/16/07 Page 2 of 3
3 C06-06326 MMC 

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE DUE DATE OF REPLY BY ONE DIAMOND ELECTRONICS, 

INC. TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS 

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

Robinson & Wood, Inc. 

227 North First Street 

San Jose, CA 95113 

(408) 298-7120 

THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE THROUGH EACH’S COUNSEL 

OF RECORD THAT: 

1. The due date for Defendant One Diamond Electronic, Inc.’s reply be continued one 

Court day from February 16, 2007 to February 20, 2007; and 

2. Plaintiff Yahoo!, Inc. be granted permission to file a surreply limited to a maximum 

of five (5) page and due no later than February 26, 2007 to address issues raised by 

Defendant relating to the remand order in the Texas companion case. 

SO STIPULATED: 

Dated: February 15, 2007 BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, LLP 

 By:__/s/________________________________ 

BRYAN SINCLAIR, 

Attorneys for Plaintiff YAHOO!, INC. 

DATED: February 15, 2006 ROBINSON & WOOD, INC. 

 By: __/s/___________________________________ 

 COLIN G. MCCARTHY, 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

ONE DIAMOND ELECTRONICS, INC., 

dba DIAMOND ELECTRONICS 

IT IS SO ORDERED. Further, the hearing is continued from March 2, 2007 to March 9, 2007. 

DATED: February 16, 2007 _______________________________ 

 JUDGE MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-06326-MMC Document 30 Filed 02/16/07 Page 3 of 3