Opinion
CASE NO. 2:11-cv-03153 LKK-DAD
03-04-2013
MEYER MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED, a Hongkong Corporation, Plaintiff, v. TELEBRANDS CORP., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant, TELEBRANDS CORP., a New Jersey Corporation, Counter-Plaintiff, v. MEYER MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED, a Hongkong Corporation, and MEYER CORPORATION, U.S., Counter-Defendants.
ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY Neil A. Smith, Esq. (SBN 63777) COOPER & DUNHAM LLP Peter D. Murray, Esq. Robert T. Maldonado, Esq. Hindy Dym, Esq. Counsel for Defendant By: R. David Donoghue HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP R. David Donoghue, Esq. (SBN 205730) Michael A. Grill (Pro Hac Vice) HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Matthew P. Vafidis (SBN 1003578) Counsel for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
MENNEMEIER, GLASSMAN & STROUD LLP
Andrew W. Stroud (SBN 240236)
980 9th Street, Suite 1700
Sacramento, CA 95814-2736
Telephone: 916-553-4000
Facsimile: 916-553-4011
Email: stroud@mgslaw.com
OF COUNSEL:
COOPER & DUNHAM LLP
Peter D. Murray (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Robert T. Maldonado (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Hindy Dym (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, New York 10112
Telephone: (212) 278-0509
Facsimile: (212) 391-0525
Email: Rmaldonado@cooperdunham.com
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
TELEBRANDS CORP., a New Jersey Corporation
JOINT STIPULATION AND
ORDER TO ADJOURN THE
HEARING DATE FOR ALL
PENDING MOTIONS
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Telebrands Corp. ("Telebrands"), and Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Meyer Manufacturing Company Limited and Counter-Defendant Meyer Corporation, U.S. (collectively, "Meyer"), hereby stipulate and request that the Court modify its Scheduling Order which states that all law and motion must be heard by March 29, 2013, so that all pending motions may be heard together on April 8, 2013.
Presently, there are four pending motions before the Court:
1) On January 22, 2013, Telebrands filed a motion to amend its Counterclaims (D.I. 65), and noticed that motion to be heard on March 11, 2013;Accordingly, the two motions filed by Telebrands are scheduled to be heard on March 11, 2013, and the two motions filed by Meyer are scheduled to be heard on March 25, 2013.
2) On February 11, 2013, Telebrands filed a motion to amend the scheduling order to permit it to file a motion to compel discovery (D.I. 67), and noticed that motion to be heard on March 11, 2013;
3) On February 24, 2013, Meyer filed a motion to strike the expert rebuttal report of Stephen M. Nowlis, Ph.D. (D.I. 68), and noticed that motion to be heard on March 25, 2013; and
4) On February 25, 2013, Meyer filed a motion for summary judgment (D.I. 71), and noticed that motion to be heard on March 25, 2013.
"D.I." refers to the ECF Docket Index for this action.
The Court issued its Scheduling Order (D.I. 39) on May 31, 2012, and ordered that all law and order motions must be heard by March 31, 2013. All motions filed by the parties were noticed to be heard by March 31, 2013. However, Telebrands' principal counsel is unavailable on March 25, 2013, due to a previous commitment to be outside of the continental United States at that time. Accordingly, Telebrands sought consent from Meyer to adjourn the hearing date for the motions filed by Meyer to the next available hearing date, which is April 8, 2013.
In addition, in this action, the principal counsel for Meyer is located in Chicago, and the principal counsel for Telebrands is located in New York. To save the parties the time and expense of having counsel travel to the Court for hearings on two dates, Meyer sought consent from Telebrands to adjourn the hearing date for the motions filed by Telebrands to April 8, 2013, so that all motions may be heard on the same date.
The parties have conferred and agreed to request that the Scheduling Order be amended such that the four pending motions recited above will be heard on April 8, 2013.
This amendment will not affect any other deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the parties respectfully request that the Court modify the current case management schedule embodied in its May 31, 2012 Scheduling Order to permit the currently pending motions (D.I. 65, 67, 68, 71) to be heard on April 8, 2013. Respectfully submitted, By: __________ ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY
Neil A. Smith, Esq. (SBN 63777)
COOPER & DUNHAM LLP
Peter D. Murray, Esq.
Robert T. Maldonado, Esq.
Hindy Dym, Esq.
Counsel for Defendant
By: R. David Donoghue HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
R. David Donoghue, Esq. (SBN 205730)
Michael A. Grill (Pro Hac Vice)
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Matthew P. Vafidis (SBN 1003578)
Counsel for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
So Ordered:
______________
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT