Cepheid
v.
Roche Molecular Sys., Inc.

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONNov 1, 2012
Case No. CV12-04411 (EMC) (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2012)

Case No. CV12-04411 (EMC)

11-01-2012

CEPHEID, Plaintiff, v. ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC. and F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD., Defendants.

COOLEY LLP MARK F. LAMBERT (197410) FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP Stephen S. Rabinowitz Randy Eisensmith (pro hac vice) Attorneys for Defendant ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC.


COOLEY LLP
MARK F. LAMBERT (197410)
FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON LLP
Stephen S. Rabinowitz
Randy Eisensmith (pro hac vice)
Attorneys for Defendant
ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC.


STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER RE: FURTHER EXTENSION

OF DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT

ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS,

INC. TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE

RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT [FRCP 15 (A); C.L.R. 6-

1 (B); 6-2 (A)]

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-1 and 6-2 and Rule 15(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order is entered into by and between Plaintiff Cepheid and Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. ("Roche Molecular") by and through their respective counsel.

WHEREAS Cepheid filed its initial Complaint for Declaratory Judgment ("Complaint") on August 21, 2012;

WHEREAS Cepheid filed its First Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment ("Amended Complaint") on September 14, 2012, prior to the due date for Roche Molecular to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint;

WHEREAS counsel for Roche Molecular requested, and counsel for Cepheid agreed, to extend the time for Roche Molecular to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint to and including November 2, 2012;

WHEREAS the Parties submitted a Stipulation and Proposed Order re: Extension of Deadline for Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. to Answer or Otherwise Response to First Amended Complaint [Dkt. 8] on September 21, 2012, which the Court entered as an Order dated September 24, 2012;

WHEREAS lead counsel for Defendant Roche Molecular, Stephen Rabinowitz, and Randy Eisensmith of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, requested a further extension of time for Roche Molecular to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint due to the prolonged disruption of power and closure of their New York City office in view of Hurricane Sandy, and counsel for Cepheid agreed to extend such time to November 9, 2012; and

WHEREAS this stipulation to extend the time for Roche Molecular to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint will not alter the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court order, other than the November 2, 2012 deadline set forth in the September 24, 2012 Order, this stipulation and the Declaration of Stephen S. Rabinowitz filed herewith is therefore in accordance with Civil Local Rule 6-1(b) and 6-2;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

The deadline for Roche Molecular to answer or otherwise respond to the First Amended Complaint is extended to and including November 9, 2012.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,


GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP


_______________


Erik R. Puknys (SBN 190926)


Attorneys for Plaintiff


CEPHEID


COOLEY LLP

_______________


Mark F. Lambert (SBN 197410)


Attorneys for Defendant


ROCHE MOLECULAR SYSTEMS, INC.

FILER'S ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO L.R. 5-1(i)(3)

I, Mark F. Lambert, attest that concurrence in the filing of this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re: Further Extension of Deadline for Defendant Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. to Answer or Otherwise Respond to First Amended Complaint has been obtained from each of the other Signatories hereto.

Executed this 31st day of October, 2012, at Palo Alto, California.

_______________


Mark F. Lambert (SBN 197410)

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore;

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Edward M. Chen