Free Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00898-JJF Document 18-8 Case 3:05-cv-02859-MHP Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/2005 Filed 01/18/2006

Page 1 of 3 Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Bingham McCutchen LLP DAVID M. BALABANIAN (SBN 37368) CHRISTOPHER B. HOCKETT (SBN 121539) JOY K. FUYUNO (SBN 193890) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

LAZIO FAMILY PRODUCTS, a sole proprietorship located in Eureka, California, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. INTEL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

No. C-05-2859-MHP STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE FILING DATE FOR DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 IT IS STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL AS FOLLOWS: Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff Lazio Family Products and Defendant Intel Corporation hereby stipulate that Intel Corporation's response to Plaintiff's complaint shall be due either 60 days after transfer of the above captioned case pursuant to any motion to coordinate or consolidate pre-trial proceedings per 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 or, in the alternative, 45 days after any such motion has been denied. The parties request this extension of time to answer or otherwise respond because the plaintiffs in Brauch, et al. v. Intel Corp., No. C 05-2743

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE RESPONSE DATE
SF/21627442.1

Case 1:05-cv-00898-JJF Document 18-8 Case 3:05-cv-02859-MHP Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/2005 Filed 01/18/2006

Page 2 of 3 Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

(BZ) (N.D. Cal., filed July 5, 2005), a related matter, have filed a petition to coordinate or consolidate pre-trial proceedings per 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, and the above-styled action has been identified as a related action to that petition. As a result the outcome of the pending petition will impact significantly the schedule of this case. This is the first stipulation between the parties. Because this litigation has just begun, granting such a stipulation will not have any negative impact on the schedule of this case. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED. DATED: July ___, 2005 Bingham McCutchen LLP

By: JOY K. FUYUNO Attorneys for Defendant Intel Corporation DATED: July ___, 2005 The Furth Firm LLP

By: ALEX C. TURAN Attorneys for Plaintiff Lazio Family Products

2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE RESPONSE DATE
SF/21627442.1

Case 1:05-cv-00898-JJF Document 18-8 Case 3:05-cv-02859-MHP Document 5-1

Filed 07/29/2005 Filed 01/18/2006

Page 3 of 3 Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE RESPONSE DATE
SF/21627442.1

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE DATE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Intel Corporation's response to Plaintiff's complaint shall be due either 60 days after transfer of the above captioned case pursuant to any motion to coordinate or consolidate pre-trial proceedings per 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, or, in the alternative, 45 days after any such motion has been denied. PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ______________, 2005 _________________________ Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel United States District Judge