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.

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN JOSE DIVISION)


May 6, 2010

HALO ELECTRONICS, INC., PLAINTIFF,
v.
BEL FUSE INC., E & E MAGNETIC PRODUCTS LIMITED, ELEC & ELTEK (USA) CORPORATION, WURTH ELECTRONICS MIDCOM, INC., WURTH ELEKTRONIK GMBH & CO. KG, AND XFMRS, INC., DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Ronald M. Whyte United States District Judge

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. TO RESPOND TO ELEC & ELTEK (USA) CORPORATION AND WURTH ELECTRONICS MIDCOM, INC.'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO HALO'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NOS. 168, 170)

On April 21, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff Halo Electronics, Inc. ("Halo") and Defendants Elec & Eltek (USA) Corporation ("E&E (USA)") and Wurth Electronics Midcom, Inc. ("Midcom")'s stipulation and request to extend the time for Halo to respond to E&E (USA) and Midcom's respective Answers and Counterclaims to Halo's First Amended Complaint (Doc. Nos. 168 and 170, respectively) from April 19, 2010 until, and including May 3, 2010, to provide the parties an opportunity to meet and confer on Halo's motion to strike the inequitable conduct allegations in E&E (USA) and Midcom's Answers, which Halo currently intends to file with its Answers to E&E (USA) and Midcom's Counterclaims. (Doc. No. 179)

The parties met and conferred telephonically on April 23, 2010. Following the meet and confer, counsel for E&E (USA) advised that although E&E (USA) disagrees that the affirmative defenses were deficient, it was willing to amend, and would be able to send counsel for Halo a proposed amended answer by May 11, 2010.

To allow the parties sufficient time to further meet and confer, Halo, E&E (USA), and Midcom, by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate and respectfully propose the following:

1. E&E (USA) and Midcom shall provide to Halo a copy of proposed Amended Answers no later than May 11, 2010;

2. The parties shall meet and confer regarding E&E (USA) and Midcom's proposed amendment no later than May 13, 2010;

3. E&E (USA) and Midcom shall advise Halo of their decision as to whether they will amend their Answers no later than May 14, 2010;

4. If E&E (USA) and Midcom intend to amend their Answers, they shall do so no later than May 17, 2010;

5. Otherwise, Halo shall file its response to E&E (USA) and Midcom's respective Answers and Counterclaims to Halo's First Amended Complaint (Doc. Nos. 168 and 170) no later than May 17, 2010.

The parties do not believe that the proposed extension of time will alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court Order.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 3, 2010

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. By: Michael J. Kane Attorneys for Plaintiff HALO ELECTRONICS, INC.

Dated: May 3, 2010

BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C. By: Michael J. Powell Attorneys for Defendant ELEC & ELTEK (USA) CORPORATION

Dated: May 3, 2010

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP By: Neal Seth Attorneys for Defendant WURTH ELECTRONICS MIDCOM, INC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100506

© 1992-2010 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.