UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN JOSE DIVISION)
May 20, 2010
HALO ELECTRONICS, INC., PLAINTIFF,
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 WURTH ELECTRONICS MIDCOM, INC.'S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO HALO'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 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)
On May 6, 2010, the Court granted Halo, E&E (USA) and Midcom' s stipulation and request to further extend the time for Halo to respond to E&E (USA) and Midcom' s respective Answers and Counterclaims to Halo' s Amended Complaint (Doc. Nos. 168 and 170, respectively) from May 3, 2010 until, and including May 17, 2010 to further meet and confer on the above identified issues and potential amended answers by E&E (USA) and Midcom to Halo' s First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 189) E&E (USA) has advised Halo that it intends to file an amended answer to Halo' s First Amended Complaint on May 17, 2010.
Halo and Midcom have reached a settlement and are in the process of memorializing the agreement. In order to allow Halo and Midcom sufficient time to finalize a resolution of this matter, Halo and Midcom, by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate and respectfully propose an extension for Halo to file its response to Midcom' s Answer and Counterclaims to Halo' s First Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 170), until and including June 7, 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Pursuant to the Northern District of California Electronic Filing Procedures and General Order No. 45, I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatories listed above.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.