Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc. et al

RESPONSE in Support re MOTION to Declare this Action First-

N.D. Cal.February 1, 2008

REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF HALO’S MOTION TO DECLARE THIS ACTION THE FIRST-FILED AND TO ENJOIN DEFENDANT BEL FUSE FROM PROCEEDING WITH DUPLICATIVE LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Civil Case No. 07-6222 RMWı 1 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 27 28 Juanita Brooks (CA#75934 / brooks@fr.com) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 678-5070 Facsimile: (858) 678-5099 Limin Zheng (zheng@fr.com) (CA #226875) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 500 Arguello Street, Suite 500 Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 839-5070 Facsimile: (650) 839-5071 Michael J. Kane (Admission pro hac vice pending / kane@fr.com)) William R. Woodford (Admission pro hac vice pending / woodford@fr.com) FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 3300 Dain Rauscher Plaza 60 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 335-5070 Facsimile: (612) 288-9696 Attorneys for Plaintiff HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SAN JOSE DIVISION) HALO ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. BEL FUSE INC., ELEC & ELTEK (USA) CORPORATION, WURTH ELEKTRONIK MIDCOM, INC., and XFMRS, INC., Defendants, Civil Case No. 07-6222 RMW REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF HALO’S MOTION TO DECLARE THIS ACTION THE FIRST-FILED AND TO ENJOIN DEFENDANT BEL FUSE FROM PROCEEDING WITH DUPLICATIVE LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DATE: March 14, 2008 TIME: 9:00 a.m. PLACE: Courtroom 6, 4th Floor JUDGE: Ronald M. Whyte Case 5:07-cv-06222-RMW Document 33 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 1 of 3 REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF HALO’S MOTION TO DECLARE THIS ACTION THE FIRST-FILED AND TO ENJOIN DEFENDANT BEL FUSE FROM PROCEEDING WITH DUPLICATIVE LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Civil Case No. 07-6222 RMWı 2 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 27 28 Pursuant to the Clerk’s Notice Of Continuance dated January 15, 2008, and this Court’s rules, the opposition to Halo’s Motion To Declare This Action The First-Filed And To Enjoin Defendant Bel Fuse From Proceeding With Duplicative Litigation In The District of New Jersey was to be filed no later than January 25, 2008.1 Bel Fuse did not file an opposition to Halo’s motion on or before the January 25th deadline. As its motion is unopposed, Halo respectfully asks the Court to immediately grant Halo the relief requested in its motion Dated: February 1, 2008 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. By: /s/ Limin Zheng Limin Zheng Attorneys for Plaintiff HALO ELECTRONICS, INC. 1 In compliance with the notice and the rules, on January 25, 2008, Halo filed its opposition to Bel Fuse's motion to dismiss or transfer which was also continued on the court's motion. (Docket No. 29.) Case 5:07-cv-06222-RMW Document 33 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 2 of 3 REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF HALO’ S MOTION TO DECLARE THIS ACTION THE FIRST-FILED AND TO ENJOIN DEFENDANT BEL FUSE FROM PROCEEDING WITH DUPLICATIVE LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Civil Case No. 07-6222 RMWı 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 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of San Mateo. My business address is Fish & Richardson P.C., 500 Arguello Street, Suite 500, Redwood City, California 94063. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the foregoing action. I am readily familiar with the business practice at my place of business for collection and processing of correspondence for personal delivery, for mailing with United States Postal Service, for facsimile, and for overnight delivery by Federal Express, Express Mail, or other overnight service. On February 1, 2008, I caused a copy of the following document(s): REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF HALO’ S MOTION TO DECLARE THIS ACTION THE FIRST-FILED AND TO ENJOIN DEFENDANT BEL FUSE FROM PROCEEDING WITH DUPLICATIVE LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY to be served on the interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope, and addressed as follows: Shane Brun Morrison & Foerster, LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Attorneys for Defendant Elec & Eltek (USA) Corporation Cranston J. Williams Baker & Hostetler LLP 12100 Wilshire Blvd, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025-7120 Attorneys for Defendant Wurth Electronics Midcom, Inc. XX MAIL: The envelope was deposited, postage fully paid, with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. Executed on February 1, 2008, at Redwood City, California. /s/ Limin Zheng Limin Zheng 50462933.doc Case 5:07-cv-06222-RMW Document 33 Filed 02/01/2008 Page 3 of 3