New Bankruptcy Opinion: TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC v. CANON, INC. – Dist. Court, ND California, 2016





TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC, Plaintiffs,

v.

CANON, INC. et al., Defendants.

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC, Plaintiffs,

v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant.

Nos. C 14-3640 CW, C 14-3643 CW

United States District Court, N.D. California.

March 22, 2016.

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR STAY OF LITIGATION AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

(Docket No. 396)

(Docket Nos. 168 and 170)

CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge.

Plaintiff Technology Properties Limited LLC (Technology Properties) and its counsel The Simon Law Firm, P.C. (Simon Law) filed a Motion for Stay of the Litigation Pending Substitution of Counsel for Plaintiff MCM Portfolio LLC (MCM). Docket No. 396, Motion for Stay. [1] Together, Plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Proposal on Representative Products, which Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) opposes. Oral argument is vacated. The Court discusses each issue below.

I. Motion for Stay Pending Substitution of Counsel

In their motion, Technology Properties and Simon Law explain that Simon Law represents both Technology Properties and MCM. They state that, because MCM terminated its attorney/client relationship with Simon Law, Simon Law cannot continue to take any action on behalf of MCM. They also argue that, due to several approaching deadlines, the litigation must be stayed to allow substitute counsel to enter on behalf of MCM and to educate itself on the issues. However, MCM responds that MCM “has been and continues to be represented by Bunsow De Mory Smith & Allison LLP in this litigation as well as several other law firms with respect to a variety of matters.” Docket No. 399, Opp. to Stay, at 2. Because MCM is represented, these arguments are unavailing.

Technology Properties and Simon Law also state that “a dispute has arisen between [Technology Properties] and MCM that must be resolved by independent counsel and may require intervention of the Bankruptcy Court.” Motion for Stay at 3. It is not clear what the nature of the dispute is, or how it would affect the litigation. In addition, it is not clear why Simon Law would require guidance from the Bankruptcy Court to continue representing Technology Properties. For these reasons, the Court DENIES the motion for stay (Docket No. 396).

II. Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Proposal on Representative Products

Plaintiffs filed a motion for extension of time for Plaintiffs to submit a proposal on representative products. Docket No. 400. In Case Number 14-3640, the parties stipulated, and the Court ordered, to extend the deadline to agree on representative products until the resolution of the motion for stay; the motion for extension in that case is moot, and the Court discusses new deadlines below. In Case Number 14-3643, HP has filed its proposed resolution and opposes the motion.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time (Case No. 14-3643, Docket No. 170). Within one week of the filing of this order, the Canon Defendants must file their proposal. Within two weeks of the filing of this order, Plaintiffs must file their proposal. The Court encourages the parties to continue working to find a mutually agreeable solution.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

[1] Unless otherwise specified, all docket numbers refer to Case Number 14-3640.

Save trees – read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

300x600

Leave a Reply