From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bus. Integration Tech. Inc. v. Mulesoft Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 3, 2012
Case No. 3:11-cv-04782-EDL (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 3:11-cv-04782-EDL

01-03-2012

BUSINESS INTEGRATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. MULESOFT, INC. & PHILIP T. BRADLEY, Defendants.

John S. Claassen, Esq. Attorney for Defendants MULESOFT, INC. & PH ILIP T. BRADLEY MOSER & MARSALEK, PC. Jennifer Betz, Esq. (admitted pro hac) Attorneys for Plaintiff BUSINESS INTEGRATION TECHNOLOGY, INC. John S. Claassen, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants MULESOFT, INC. & PHILIP T. BRADLEY


CLAASSEN, Professional Corporation

John S. Claassen, Esq. (212954)

Attorney for Defendants

MULESOFT, INC. and

PHILIP T. BRADLEY

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED]

ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE &

RELATED DEADLINES AS MODIFIED

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & RELATED DEADLINES

Defendants MuleSoft, Inc. and Philip T. Bradley ("Defendants") and plaintiff Business Integration Technology ("Plaintiff") hereby recite, stipulate, and agree pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-12 and 16-2(d) as follows:

RECITALS

A. This case was transferred from the Eastern District of Missouri on or around September 16, 2011 (See Doc. 53).

B. Soon after the transfer, the Court entered an Order Setting Initial Case Management for January 10, 2012 and ordered, among other things, that the parties meet and confer regarding initial disclosures by December 20, 2012 and serve initial disclosures no later than January 3, 2012.

C. Plaintiff filed Document 70, its Second Amended Complaint, on or around December 19, 2011.

D. Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss Document 70 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, move for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

E. Because of uncertainty regarding what allegations will survive the motion described above, there is a risk that dates set at the Initial Case Management Conference will be delayed as a result of possible further amendments to the pleadings.

F. There is an additional risk of unnecessary disputes between the parties about the proper scope of discovery in light of their differences over the viability of certain allegations in the Second Amended Complaint.

G. A continuance of the Initial Case Management Conference and of the conference of the parties until after the parties' differences regarding the pleadings have been resolved is likely to reduce disputes between the parties about the scope of permissible discovery.

H. Defendants have sought and received Plaintiff's agreement to a continuance of: (i) the Initial Case Management Conference; (ii) the parties' conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f); and (iii) the deadline for service of initial disclosures.
I. The agreement is conditioned on Defendants' not proposing an alternative schedule until such time as the Court enters an order granting or denying Defendants' motion.

STIPULATION

Accordingly, the parties stipulate and agree as follows:

1. The Initial Case Management Conference scheduled for January 10, 2012 is hereby vacated;
2. The parties shall file a stipulation proposing an Initial Case Management Conference no later than 15 days following the entry of an order regarding Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss.
3. The December 20, 2011 deadline to meet and confer regarding initial disclosures and the January 3, 2012 deadline for service of the parties Initial Disclosures are vacated. The stipulation described in paragraph 2 shall propose deadlines for the parties to meet and confer regarding initial disclosures and service of initial disclosures.

Respectfully submitted,

CLAASSEN, Professional Corporation

By: _______________

John S. Claassen, Esq.

Attorney for Defendants

MULESOFT, INC. & PHILIP T. BRADLEY

MOSER & MARSALEK, PC.

By: _________________

Jennifer Betz, Esq. (admitted pro hac)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

BUSINESS INTEGRATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For good cause shown, the above stipulation of the parties is adopted as the Order of the Cour the Initial Case Management Conference is continued to April 3, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. IT IS SO ORDERED, AS MODIFIED.

_________________

Elizabeth D. Laporte

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CERTIFICATON

I John S. Claassen, Esq., am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE & RELATED DEADLINES. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that Jennifer Betz, Esq. has concurred in this filing. Respectfully submitted,

CLAASSEN, Professional Corporation

By: _________________

John S. Claassen, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendants

MULESOFT, INC. & PHILIP T. BRADLEY


Summaries of

Bus. Integration Tech. Inc. v. Mulesoft Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jan 3, 2012
Case No. 3:11-cv-04782-EDL (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012)
Case details for

Bus. Integration Tech. Inc. v. Mulesoft Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BUSINESS INTEGRATION TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff, v. MULESOFT, INC. …

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 3, 2012

Citations

Case No. 3:11-cv-04782-EDL (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2012)