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.

Martone v. Burgess

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION


May 5, 2009

MASSIMILIANO MARTONE, AN INDIVIDUAL; MARTONE RADIO TECHNOLOGY, INC., A NEVADA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
DAVID BURGESS, AN INDIVIDUAL; KESTREL SIGNAL PROCESSING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; RANGE NETWORKS, INC. DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Claudia Wilken United States District Court

FIFTH STIPULATION AND ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO ADD 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. Since mediating this case with Judge Edward Infante of JAMS in February, 2009, the parties have been in ongoing settlement negotiations and are making progress towards a final resolution of the case. Pursuant to stipulated order, the current deadline for the addition of new parties in this matter is May 1, 2009. The parties now request a further extension of that deadline to June 1, 2009 in order to allow for continuing negotiation of a potential resolution of the matter.

2. The basis of this request is as follows: The parties have been negotiating in good faith since the mediation with Judge Infante and are making positive progress towards a resolution via settlement of the case. A primary reason for the delay in reaching the final resolution is due to the fact that one of the many deal points that the parties are working on involves a complex licensing issue that involves a third party which is not involved in the current lawsuit. The parties have contacted this third party in order to explore resolution of this issue.

Accordingly, to allow additional time to explore resolution, the parties request a deadline of June 1, 2009 as the new date to add new parties. The parties believe that this extension will facilitate settlement and will conserve judicial resources.

3. 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. If a settlement cannot be finalized by June 1, 2009, the parties will request appropriate modifications to the remaining deadlines in the Court's September 5 scheduling order.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090505

© 1992-2009 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.