`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SANTA ANA DIVISION
`
`Case No. 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM
`
`ORDER CONTINUING
`SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
`
`
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`NETSUITE, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:19-cv-01151-JLS-DFM Document 34 Filed 10/29/19 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:331
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`This matter is before the Court on the parties’ stipulation to continue the
`
`Scheduling Conference until November 8, 2019. The parties seek a one-week
`continuance to consolidate the Scheduling Conference in this matter with the
`Scheduling Conference date in a related case (against a different Defendant). Upon
`review, the Court notes that two motions are pending in this case, the resolution of
`which are likely to impact scheduling.1 Therefore, the Court CONTINUES the
`Scheduling Conference in this case to January 31, 20202 at 10:30 a.m.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`DATED: October 29, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________________
`Hon. Josephine L. Staton
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`1 Defendant moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint based in part upon a claim construction
`ruling on the asserted patents issued by the Eastern District of Texas. (Doc. 27.) Defendant also
`moves to stay non-claim construction discovery in this case. (Doc. 30.)
`2 As a matter of practice, the Court usually issues a scheduling order based on the written submission
`of the parties. The parties are directed to file an amended a Joint Rule 26(f) Report two weeks in
`advance of the continued Scheduling Conference. The parties are advised that absent extraordinary
`circumstances, the Court sets a full pretrial schedule; thus, in most instances, proposals like those
`made by the parties’ here (see Doc. 29-1) would be rejected, and the Court would calculate its
`presumptive schedule based on the Scheduling Conference date. Here, the Court continues the
`Scheduling Conference because the pending motions require the Court to give further consideration to
`the parties’ positions regarding the litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and how that litigation
`impacts this case.
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`