Opinion
CASE NO. 3:C10-CV-04958-JSW
11-01-2011
DATA MARK, INC. dba DELTATRAK TECHNOLOGIES, a California corporation; FREDERICK L. WU, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. BRAIN TUNNELGENIX TECHNOLOGIES CORP. f/k/a ETERLINK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
BOWLES & VERNA LLP By: Michael P. Connolly RICHARD T. BOWLES BRADLEY R. BOWLES MICHAEL P. CONNOLLY Attorneys for Plaintiffs DATA MARK, INC. dba DELTATRAK TECHNOLOGIES, a California corporation, FREDERICK L. WU, an individual QUINTAN A LAW GROUP, APC By: ANDRES QUINTANA JOHN HOUKOM Attorneys for Defendants BRAIN TUNNELGENIX TECHNOLOGIES CORP. f/k/a ETERLINK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; MARCIO AURELIO MARTINS ABREU a/k/a M. MARC ABREU, M.D., an individual; JOSEPH ROGER TITONE, an individual; TITRONICS RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., an Iowa corporation
RICHARD T. BOWLES (# 46234)
BRADLEY R. BOWLES (# 202722)
MICHAEL P. CONNOLLY (# 238478)
BOWLES & VERNA LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs DATA MARK, INC. dba DELTATRAK TECHNOLOGIES,
a California corporation, FREDERICK L. WU, an individual
Andres F. Quintana (SBN 190525)
John M. Houkom (SBN 203240)
QUINTANA LAW GROUP
A Professional Law Corporation
Attorneys for Defendants Brain Tunnelgenix Technologies Corp.,
Marcio Abreu, Joseph Titone, and Titronics Research & Development Co., Inc.
JOINT STIPULATION AND REQUEST
TO CONTINUE DEFENDANTS'
RESPONSE DATE; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Judge: Hon. Jeffrey S. White
Pursuant to Northern District Local Rule 7-12, plaintiffs Data Mark, Inc. dba DeltaTrak Technologies and Frederick L. Wu (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and defendants Brain Tunnelgenix Technologies Corp. f/k/a Eterlink International Corporation, Marcio Aurelio Martins Abreu a/k/a M. Marc Abreu, M.D., Joseph Roger Titone, and Titronics Research & Development Co., Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"), by and through their counsel of record, stipulate as follows:
RECITALS
On April 15, 2011, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation And Request to Continue Initial Case Management Conference from May 6, 2011 to July 15, 2011, in light of the pending Motions and because the parties had scheduled a mediation before the Hon. Beverly Hodgson (Ret.), in New Haven, Connecticut for May 17, 2011. On April 18, 2011, the Court issued an order continuing the Initial Case Management Conference to July 15, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.
On May 17, 2011, the mediation took place in New Haven, Connecticut. All parties and their respective counsel appeared at the mediation.
Although no settlement of this case was reached at the May 17th mediation, the parties continued to discuss the possibility of resolving this case informally rather than proceeding further into litigation.
On June 23, 2011, the parties filed another Joint Stipulation And Request to Continue Initial Case Management Conference from July 15, 2011 to September 23, 2011, in light of the then-pending jurisdictional motions and on-going settlement discussions between the parties. On June 27, 2011, the Court issued an order continuing the Initial Case Management Conference to September 23, 2011 at 1:30 p.m.
On August 18, 2011, the Court issued an order denying the Defendants' jurisdictional motions. During this time, the parties continued to negotiate a potentially global settlement of this case.
On August 29, 2011, the parties filed another Joint Stipulation And Request to Continue Initial Case Management Conference from September 23, 2011 to December 2, 2011, in light of the on-going settlement discussions between the parties. On August 30, 2011, the Court issued an order continuing the Initial Case Management Conference to September 23, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. The court further extended the time for Defendants to respond to the First Amended Complaint to November 1, 2011.
With respect to the settlement posture, the parties exchanged various drafts of a proposed confidential settlement agreement and release between August and October 2011, and believe they are fairly close to resolving this case informally. Currently, the parties are finalizing the settlement document and working through the proposed attachment to same. The parties believe that a final resolution of this case may be had by November 7, 2011.
In the interest of saving potential time and expense, the Defendants request an extension of time from November 1, 2011 to November 8, 2011, to file and serve their responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint. The parties believe that a brief, one-week continuance of the responsive date of the Defendants is appropriate.
With the Plaintiffs' consent, the Defendants further request that the Court approve the extension of the date for them to file and serve their responsive pleading to the First Amended Complaint from November 1, 2011 to November 8, 2011. The Plaintiffs have stipulated to this extension, subject to this Court's approval.
This Stipulation does not affect the Court's Case Management Conference date of December 2, 2011 or other pre-conference dates.
STIPULATION
Based on the foregoing Recitals, Plaintiffs and Defendants agree and stipulate as follows:
1. The Defendants shall have up to and through November 8, 2011 to file and serve their responsive pleading to the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. IT SO STIPULATED.
BOWLES & VERNA LLP
By: Michael P. Connolly
RICHARD T. BOWLES
BRADLEY R. BOWLES
MICHAEL P. CONNOLLY
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
DATA MARK, INC. dba DELTATRAK
TECHNOLOGIES, a California
corporation, FREDERICK L. WU, an
individual
QUINTAN A LAW GROUP, APC
By: ANDRES QUINTANA
JOHN HOUKOM
Attorneys for Defendants
BRAIN TUNNELGENIX
TECHNOLOGIES CORP. f/k/a
ETERLINK INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; MARCIO AURELIO
MARTINS ABREU a/k/a M. MARC
ABREU, M.D., an individual; JOSEPH
ROGER TITONE, an individual;
TITRONICS RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., an Iowa
corporation
ATTESTATION OF FILING
Pursuant to General Order 45.X.B, I attest that I have obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from the parties listed above.
Andres F. Quintana, Esq.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO THE FOREGOING STIPULATION, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendants have up to and through November 8, 2011 to file and serve their responsive pleading to the Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
By:Hon. Jeffery S. White
United States District Judge