Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Landmark Screens, LLC v. Morgan

January 4, 2010

LANDMARK SCREENS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP; AND THOMAS D. KOHLER, AN INDIVIDUAL, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Hon. Jeremy Fogel

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY DEADLINE Courtroom 3 Comp. Filed: May 21, 2008 Trial Date: None set

This stipulation is entered into by and between Plaintiff Landmark Screens, LLC ("Landmark") and Defendants Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP ("MLB") and Thomas D. Kohler ("Kohler"), pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, as follows:

WHEREAS, on November 30, 2005, Landmark filed a complaint for legal malpractice and other claims against MLB, Kohler and Pennie & Edmonds LLP in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 1-05-CV-053568 (the "State Court Action");

WHEREAS, on or around March 2008, Landmark entered into a settlement with Pennie & Edmonds and Thomas Kohler (in his capacity as a Pennie partner), and continued to prosecute the State Court Action against MLB and Kohler (in his capacity as an MLB partner);

WHEREAS, on May 21, 2008, the Superior Court sustained MLB and Kohler's Demurrer to Landmark's state court complaint without leave to amend, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Landmark's claims required resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law;

WHEREAS, thereafter, Landmark filed a notice of appeal (the "State Court Appeal");

WHEREAS, on May 21, 2008, Landmark filed this federal action based on federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338;

WHEREAS, on November 3, 2008, Landmark filed its Second Amended Complaint in this action [Docket No. 31];

WHEREAS, on January 20, 2009, the Court issued an order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Landmark's Second Amended Complaint [Docket No. 42];

WHEREAS, on May 15, 2009, the parties participated in a Case Management Conference during which the Court heard MLB and Kohler's proposal to stay fact discovery pending resolution of the State Court Appeal;

WHEREAS during the May 15, 2009 Case Management conference, the court set a January 30, 2010 fact discovery cut-off and scheduled a Further Case Management Conference for February 5, 2010;

WHEREAS, on September 1, 2009, MLB filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Compel In Camera Review of Documents [Docket No. 62], and the motion was granted in part and denied in part on October 21, 2009 [Docket No. 81] Court issued its ruling on those objections on December 15, 2009 [Docket No. 94];

WHEREAS, pursuant to Magistrate Lloyd's in camera review, Landmark was ordered to produce certain documents by December 22, 2009 [Docket No. 95];

WHEREAS, on December 1, 2009, Landmark filed a Motion to Compel Production of Documents Withheld as Privileged [Docket No. 85], and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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