UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 8, 2011
TIFFANY (NJ), LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF,
MIKI BOUTIQUE, INC., A DISSOLVED CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION, AND MEI NG, AN INDIVIDUAL,
INDIVIDUALLY AND JOINTLY, D/B/A YUKI BOUTIQUE AND DOES 1-10,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge
Complaint filed: March 31, 2011
THIRD STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO VERIFIED COMPLAINT; [PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to Local Rule 6.1(a), Plaintiff Tiffany (NJ), LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "Plaintiff"), and Defendants, Miki Boutique, Inc. a dissolved California corporation, and Mei Ng, an individual, individually and jointly, d/b/a Yuki Boutique (collectively the "Defendants"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to a thirty (30) day extension of time, up to and including July 11, 2011, for the Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's Verified Complaint filed on March 31, 2011.
1. On March 31, 2011, Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint alleging trademark infringement and counterfeiting, and false designation of origin against the Defendants (e-docket 1).
2. Defendants were each served with their respective Summons and the Verified Complaint on April 5, 2011 (Miki Boutique) (e-docket 23), and April 8, 2011 (Ng) (e-docket 24).
The parties previously stipulated that the Defendants' response to the Verified Complaint was due on May 10, 2011 (e-docket 30), which stipulation the Court approved (e-docket 31). To allow for settlement discussions to continue, the parties further stipulated that the Defendants' response to the Verified Complaint is currently due on or before June 10, 2011, which the Court approved (e-dockets 33, 34).
3. The parties' settlement discussions are still ongoing.
4. The parties have recently notified Defendants' insurance carrier of this action, and are currently awaiting a response from the insurance carrier regarding defense coverage.
Accordingly, in order to allow (i) the insurance carrier an opportunity to review the notification submitted in this matter, and make a determination regarding defense coverage and (ii) the appearance of any additional counsel in connection with that coverage, Plaintiff and Defendants have stipulated and agreed that a response to the Verified Complaint by Defendants shall be due no later than July 11, 2011.
5. This is the third request for an extension of time of the deadline for the Defendants to respond to the Verified Complaint, and the parties represent the request for additional time will not alter any deadline already fixed by the Court nor prejudice either party in this matter.
Pursuant to Local Rule 6.1(a), the parties hereby stipulate, through their respective counsel, that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Verified Complaint on or before July 11, 2011.
DATED: June 7, 2011
KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY & ROMAN LLP.
Anne E. Kearns
Attorneys for Plaintiff
DATED: June 7, 2011 LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN PRATHER
Edwin K. Prather
Attorneys for Defendants
IT IS SO ORDERED
DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45, §X.B
I, Anne E. Kearns, hereby declare pursuant to General Order 45, §X.B, that I have obtained the concurrence in the filing of this document from the other signatory listed above.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing declaration is true and correct.
Executed on June 7, 2011, in the City of San Francisco, California.
KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY & ROMAN LLP. Anne E. Kearns Attorneys for Plaintiff
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.