Pacer; e.DIGITAL v. FUSION-IO, INC- settlement should conclude by June,30,2014
in response to
by
Message: Fusion -O Boom
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 13-cv-2901-H-BGS
ORDER CONTINUING ALL
DEADLINES IN LIEU OF A
STAY
[Doc. No. 30]
vs.
FUSION-IO, INC.,
Defendant.
On May 8, 2014, Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation filed its First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant Fusion-IO, Inc. (Doc. No. 28.) On May 22,
2014, Defendant filed its answer. (Doc. No. 29.) On May 28, 2014, the parties filed
a notice of settlement and joint motion to stay all deadlines pending settlement. (Doc.
No. 30.) The parties request a stay until June 30, 2014 to execute a settlement
agreement and file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (See id. at 2.)
“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its
power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997).
Furthermore, “the suppliant for a stay must make out a clear case of hardship or
inequity in being required to go forward. . . .” Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248,
255 (1936); see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Landis and holding that “being required to defend a suit, without more, does
- 1 - 13cv2901
Case 3:13-cv-02901-H-BGS Document 31 Filed 05/30/14 Page 1 of 2
not constitute a ‘clear case of hardship or inequity’ within the meaning of Landis”).
In lieu of a formal stay, the Court orders a limited continuance of deadlines in
this action for the parties to effect settlement. A one-month extension of the case
deadlines ensures that the proceedings will be delayed no longer than necessary.
Exercising its discretion, the Court denies the parties’ motion to stay the proceedings
and continues all deadlines until June 30, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 30, 2014
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
E.DIGITAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 13-cv-2901-H-BGS
ORDER CONTINUING ALL
DEADLINES IN LIEU OF A
STAY
[Doc. No. 30]
vs.
FUSION-IO, INC.,
Defendant.
On May 8, 2014, Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation filed its First Amended
Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant Fusion-IO, Inc. (Doc. No. 28.) On May 22,
2014, Defendant filed its answer. (Doc. No. 29.) On May 28, 2014, the parties filed
a notice of settlement and joint motion to stay all deadlines pending settlement. (Doc.
No. 30.) The parties request a stay until June 30, 2014 to execute a settlement
agreement and file a notice of voluntary dismissal. (See id. at 2.)
“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its
power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997).
Furthermore, “the suppliant for a stay must make out a clear case of hardship or
inequity in being required to go forward. . . .” Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248,
255 (1936); see also Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005)
(quoting Landis and holding that “being required to defend a suit, without more, does
- 1 - 13cv2901
Case 3:13-cv-02901-H-BGS Document 31 Filed 05/30/14 Page 1 of 2
not constitute a ‘clear case of hardship or inequity’ within the meaning of Landis”).
In lieu of a formal stay, the Court orders a limited continuance of deadlines in
this action for the parties to effect settlement. A one-month extension of the case
deadlines ensures that the proceedings will be delayed no longer than necessary.
Exercising its discretion, the Court denies the parties’ motion to stay the proceedings
and continues all deadlines until June 30, 2014.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 30, 2014
23 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply