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.

Tiffany (Nj), LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company v. Miki Boutique

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


May 9, 2011

TIFFANY (NJ), LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MIKI BOUTIQUE, INC., A DISSOLVED CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND MEI NG, AN INDIVIDUAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND JOINTLY, D/B/A YUKI BOUTIQUE AND DOES 1-10,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Maxine M. Chesney U.S. District Judge

EDWIN K. PRATHER (Cal. Bar No. 190536) LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN PRATHER 2 461 Bush Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94108 3 Telephone: 415-881-7774 Email: Edwin@pratherlawoffices.com 4 Attorneys for Defendants 5 MIKI BOUTIQUE, INC., a dissolved California corporation; MEI NG, an individual, individually 6 and jointly, d/b/a YUKI BOUTIQUE 7 8

STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ) ORDER

Complaint Filed: March 31, 2011

Pursuant to Local Rule 6.1(a), Defendants MIKI BOUTIQUE, INC., a dissolved California 20 corporation, and MEI NG, an individual, individually and jointly, d/b/a YUKI BOUTIQUE 21 ("Defendants") and Plaintiff TIFFANY (NJ), LLC, and by and through their respective counsel, 22 hereby stipulate to an extension of time for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint filed on 23 March 31, 2011. 24

RECITALS

1. On March 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging trademark infringement, 26 counterfeiting, and false designation of origin, against Defendants. 27

2. Defendants were served with the summons and complaint on April 5, 2011. By 28 previous stipulation, a response to the complaint by Defendants is currently due on May 10, 2011.

3. To allow for continuing settlement discussions, Plaintiff and Defendants have 2 stipulated and agreed that a response to the complaint by Defendants shall be due no later than June 3 10, 2011. The parties aver that the requested extension will not alter the date of any event or 4 deadline already fixed by Court order. 5

STIPULATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 6.1(a), the parties hereby stipulate, through their respective counsel, 7 that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's complaint by June 10, 2011. 8

Respectfully submitted, 9

[PROPOSED] ORDER

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's 3 complaint by June 10, 2011. 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45, § X.B

I, EDWIN K. PRATHER, herby declare pursuant to General Order 45, § X.B, that I have obtained the concurrence in the filing of this document from each of the other signatories listed above.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing declaration is true and correct.

Executed on May 6, 2011, in the City of San Francisco, California.

20110509

© 1992-2011 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.