UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 9, 2006
DIOPTICS MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
BEI FRANCHISING, INC., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Maxine M. Chesney
Date: September 15, 2006 Time: 9:00 a.m.
CONSENT MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME AND ORDER EXTENDING CERTAIN DUE DATES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Courtroom: 7, 19th Floor the matter may be heard in the above-entitled Court, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DEFENDANT BEI FRANCHISING AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 15, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. or soon thereafter as Francisco, California, 94102, plaintiff DIOPTICS MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC., will, and hereby does, move this Court for an order to extend the date for BEI to answer Dioptics's complaint and the date for the parties to: (i) meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan; (2) file ADR Certification Signed by Phone Conference. This consent motion will be based on the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the documents and records on file with the Court in this action, without oral argument as this motion is consented by defendant BEI Franchising, Inc. Parties and Counsel; and (3) file either Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Dioptics Medical Products, Inc., ("Dioptics") is the owner of several registered trademarks incorporating "Polar" in Trademark International Classification Code 009. On April 19, 2006 Dioptics filed suit against BEI alleging that BEI's registered marks and graphics mark application 5 infringed Dioptics's Polar Family of Marks. See Complaint, ¶¶14-18. The parties have been in settlement negotiations and are close to finalizing a settlement agreement. Dioptics files this consent motion for an extension of the deadlines listed in the below chart. BEI consents to this motion. Lee Decl, ¶ 2, Ex. A. The parties have not filed a joint stipulation because BEI's Counsel, Mr. Benjamin B. Reed, is not admitted to practice law in the State of California and is not admitted Pro Hac Vice in this proceeding.
Date Proposed Event Date 08/14/2006 09/08/2006 o Last day for Defendant BEI to answer Plaintiff Dioptics's complaint 08/28/2006 09/08/2006 Last day to: meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan file ADR Certification Signed by Parties and Counsel file either Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference Accordingly, Dioptics's requests at the Court's earliest convenience that the Court grant Dioptics's motion to extend the due dates as indicated in the chart above, without the need for oral argument since BEI consents to this motion.
DATED: August 8, 2006
Good cause appearing therefore, it is hereby ORDERED all dates and deadlines are extended as indicated in the chart below.
New Date Event 09/08/2006 o Last day for Defendant BEI to answer Plaintiff Dioptics's complaint 09/08/2006 Last day to: meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan file ADR Certification Signed by Parties and Counsel o file either Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.