Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dioptics Medical Products, Inc. v. BEI Franchising

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


October 6, 2006

DIOPTICS MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BEI FRANCHISING, INC., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Maxine M. Chesney

CONSENT MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME AND ORDER EXTENDING CERTAIN DUE DATES AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Date: November 17, 2006 Time: 9:00 a.m. 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 November 17, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as Francisco, California, 94102, plaintiff DIOPTICS MEDICAL PRODUCTS, INC. ("Dioptics"), will, and hereby does, move this Court for an order to extend the date for defendant BEI FRANCHISING, INC. ("BEI"), to answer Dioptics's complaint and the date for the parties to: (i) meet and confer regarding initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection, and a discovery plan; (2) file the ADR Certification Signed by Parties and Counsel; and, (3) file either a Stipulation to the ADR Process or a Notice of Need for ADR 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 defendant BEI consents to this motion.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Dioptics Medical Products, Inc., 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 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, ¶ 3, 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

10/06/2006

10/20/2006 o Last day for Defendant BEI to answer Plaintiff

Dioptics's complaint

10/06/2006

10/20/2006 Last day to:

o meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan

o file ADR Certification Signed by Parties and Counsel

o file either Stipulation to ADR Process or Notice of Need for ADR Phone Conference

Accordingly, Dioptics's requests that at the Court's earliest convenience the Court grants 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: October 6, 2006

Respectfully submitted,

Good cause appearing therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that all dates and deadlines are extended as indicated in the chart below.

New Date Event

10/20/2006

o Last day for Defendant BEI to answer Plaintiff Dioptics's complaint 10/20/2006 Last day to:

o meet and confer re: initial disclosures, early settlement, ADR process selection, and discovery plan

o 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.

Honorable Maxine M. Chesney, Judge United States District Court

20061006

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.