Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01315/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01315-35/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
TSI Incorporated
Counter-claimant
Aleksandr L. Yufa
Counter-defendant

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEKSANDR L. YUFA,

Plaintiff,

v.

TSI INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 09-cv-01315-KAW 

ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF'S 

EX PARTE APPLICATION AS A 

MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE 

RELIEF; ORDER DENYING MOTION 

FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

Re: Dkt. No. 232

On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff Aleksandr L. Yufa filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Ex 

Parte Application to Appoint Another Judge for Settlement Conference.” (Dkt. No. 232.) Given 

that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will construe his request as a motion for 

administrative relief to select a different magistrate judge to facilitate settlement negotiations. 

Plaintiff’s motion, however, fails to comply with Civil L.R. 7-11(a), because it was not 

“accompanied by a proposed order and by either a stipulation under Civil L.R. 7-12 or by a 

declaration that explains why a stipulation could not be obtained.”

Notwithstanding, the Court will consider the administrative motion on the merits and 

without further submission by Plaintiff. On August 20, 2015, Defendant TSI filed a response to 

Plaintiff’s motion, where it opined that “Judge Ryu performed her duties in the utmost 

professional manner.” (Dkt. No. 233 at 2.) Given Judge Ryu’s repeated attempts to resolve this 

case at its various stages, the Court is inclined to agree with TSI. 

On August 25, 2015, Dr. Yufa filed a reply to TSI’s response, which is not permitted under 

Civil L.R. 7-11, so it is stricken. In any case, this court would deny any properly noticed motion 

to stay the resolution of the pending motion to appoint a receiver and compel the assignment of 

Dr. Yufa’s patents.

In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for administrative relief. 

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 236 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The Court will, however, still give the parties until October 1, 2015 to reach a settlement. If the 

parties do not reach a settlement, the Court will rule on the pending motion to appoint a receiver 

and compel the assignment of Plaintiff’s patents, which may include determining the order in 

which Dr. Yufa’s patents are assigned for sale to satisfy the outstanding judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2015

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:09-cv-01315-KAW Document 236 Filed 08/31/15 Page 2 of 2