Message: e.Digital Corporation v. New Dane - CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
e.Digital Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Eye-Fi, Inc.,
Defendant.
And Related Counterclaims.
Case No. 3:13-cv-2899-H-BGS
PLAINTIFF E.DIGITAL
CORPORATION'S
STATEMENT PURSUANT TO
LOCAL CIVIL RULE 7.1 (e)(2)
OF NON-OPPOSITION TO
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
AMEND ANSWER
Assigned to the Honorable
Judge Marilyn L. Huff
Courtroom 15A (Annex)
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
TO THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA:
NOTICE is hereby given by Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant e.Digital
Corporation (“Plaintiff”) of the following:
WHEREAS, on or about October 20, 2014, Defendant and Counter-
Defendant Eye-Fi Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a motion for leave to amend its answer
and Counterclaims in the motion entitled, “
Notice Of Motion And Motion For
Leave To Amend Answer And Counterclaims
(Dkt #27, et seq.) (“Motion”);
WHEREAS, the Motion is set to be heard on November 17, 2014 at 10:30
a.m.;
WHEREAS, Plaintiff fully disputes the factual allegations made in the
Motion by Defendant;
WHEREAS, after review of the matter and in good faith even though
Plaintiff fully disputes any and all of the factual allegations made in the Motion,
Plaintiff has determined that it does not and will not oppose Defendant’s Motion
seeking leave to amend Defendant’s answer and counterclaims;
WHEREAS, after the Motion was filed, Plaintiff informed Defendant via
email one or more times that Plaintiff would stipulate to Defendant’s request for
leave to amend its answer and counterclaims; and,
WHEREAS, Defendant failed and/or refused to respond to one or more of
Plaintiff’s requests made after the Motion was filed that Defendant provide a joint
motion seeking approval of the stipulation for leave to amend Defendant’s answer
and taking the Motion off calendar so as not to waste the Court’s judicial resources
and time.
In light of the foregoing and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(e)(2), Plaintiff
hereby indicates that it does not oppose Defendant’s Motion and stipulates to
Defendant filing its proposed “
Defendant And Counterclaimant Eye-Fi, Inc.’s First
Amended Answer And Counterclaims To Plaintiff And CounterDefendant e.Digital
Corporation’s First Amended Complaint
”, as attached to its Motion” (hereafter
referred to “Proposed Amended Answer”).
Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the Court take the Motion off
calendar and/or that no hearing on the matter be held given that the Motion is not
opposed.
It is further respectfully requested that in light of the confidentiality issues
related to Defendant’s Proposed Amended Answer and the parties’ obligations
pursuant to the protective order issued in this matter, that the Court order
Defendant’s Proposed Amended Answer be filed under seal.
Dated: October 28, 2014
HANDAL & ASSOCIATES
By: /s/Anton N. Handal____________
Anton N. Handal
Pamela C. Chalk
Gabriel G. Hedrick
Attorneys for Plaintiff
e.Digital Corporation
15 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply