Opinion
Case No. 08-2379 CW.
February 24, 2009
Kevin D. Lally (SBN 095374), Edward Romero (SBN 148495), GREENAN, PEFFER, SALLANDER LALLY LLP, San Ramon, California.
Mary McNamara (SBN 147131), August Gugelmann (SBN 240544), SWANSON, McNAMARA HALLER LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, MASSIMILIANO MARTONE and MARTONE RADIO TECHNOLOGY, INC.
Christopher W. Sweeney, Esq. (SBN 143217), Law Offices of Christopher W. Sweeney, Fairfield, California.
SECOND STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING BRIEF EXTENSIONS ON THE DEADLINES RELATING TO MEDIATION AND ADDITION OF NEW PARTIES
Plaintiffs Massimiliano Martone ("Martone") and Martone Radio Technology, Inc. ("MRT") and Defendants David Burgess ("Burgess"), Kestrel Signal Processing, Inc. (Kestrel") and Range Networks, Inc. ("Range"), (collectively, the "Parties"), by and through their respective attorneys, stipulate and agree as follows:
1. On August 28, 2008, at the first Case Management Conference in this case, the Court set a series of deadlines for the management of this case. Relevant to this stipulation is the Court's setting of January 30, 2009 as both the deadline to add additional parties and for mediation to have occurred (taking into account the mediator's schedule). Case Management Order, dated September 5, 2008 (Docket No. 18.)
2. Upon stipulation of the parties, on February 2, 2009, the Court ordered that the time within which to complete mediation and to add additional parties (should mediation fail) be extended to February 27, 2009.
3. On February 17, 2009, the parties submitted to mediation before Judge Edward Infante (Ret.) of JAMS and discussed a proposed framework for settlement of this case. Final settlement is contingent upon the parties' reaching a definitive written settlement agreement on all specific terms, the details of which remain to be worked out. Accordingly, the parties wish to postpone the deadline to add additional parties until March 18, 2009, a date by which the parties will have concluded a settlement of this matter or will have determined that a settlement is not tenable. It is submitted that such an adjustment to the Court's scheduling order will facilitate the potential settlement of this case and will conserve judicial resources.
4. At this time, the Parties do not seek any change to the remaining deadlines in the Court's September 5 scheduling order, including, without limitation, the time to assert additional claims against the Parties to the action.
ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.