32
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 32 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 521
- Pages: 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA NVIDIA CORPORATION,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) RAMBUS, INC. ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ )
Civil Action No.: 1:08-cv-473
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER AND MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant’s opposition makes it clear that both parties would like the Court to rule on Defendant’s Motion to Transfer on an expedited basis in view of the CMC that is currently scheduled to take place in the California Action on December 5, 2008. (See D.E. 31, at p. 2). Defendant, however, objects to Plaintiff’s request that the Court consider both Defendant’s Motion to Transfer and Motion to Dismiss on an expedited basis. (Id.). Plaintiff respectfully suggests that the Court should consider those motions jointly on an expedited basis because: (1) the evidence and law pertaining to both motions are substantially related (such motions are often contained in a single pleading, yet Defendant chose to file its Motion to Transfer a week after filing its Motion to Dismiss); and (2) if the Court fails to rule on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss prior to the California Action’s CMC, the parties will still not have certainty regarding what claims will be allowed to proceed in North Carolina, thus defeating the purpose of expedited consideration altogether.
Case 1:08-cv-00473-UA-WWD
Document 32
Filed 11/04/2008
Page 1 of 3
As for whether a hearing would help expedite the process and answer any unresolved questions the Court may have, Plaintiff of course defers to the Court. Respectfully submitted, This the 4th day of November, 2008.
/s/ John F. Morrow, Jr. Mark N. Poovey (NC Bar No. 9416) John F. Morrow, Jr. (NC Bar No. 23382) Jason C. Hicks. (NC Bar No. 33575) Attorneys for Plaintiff Nvidia Corporation WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC One West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 Telephone: (336) 721-3600 Telephone: (336) 721-3660 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] -andJ. Peter Coll, Esq. Karen D. Thompson, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 666 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10103 Telephone: (212) 506-5000 Facsimile: (212) 506-5151 I. Neel Chatterjee, Esq. Sean Lincoln, Esq. Na’il Benjamin, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015 Telephone: (650) 614-7400 Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
-2-
Case 1:08-cv-00473-UA-WWD
Document 32
Filed 11/04/2008
Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he is an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of North Carolina, and is a person of such age and discretion as to be competent to serve process. That on November 4, 2008, he caused to be served a copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER AND MOTION TO DISMISS in the manner indicated below and addressed as follows: Via ECF: DANIEL ALAN M. RULEY BELL DAVIS & PITT, P.A. POB 21029 WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27120-1029 336-714-4147 Fax: 336-722-8153 Email: [email protected]
/s/ John F. Morrow, Jr. John F. Morrow, Jr. (NC Bar No. 23382) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC
-3-
Case 1:08-cv-00473-UA-WWD
Document 32
Filed 11/04/2008
Page 3 of 3
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) RAMBUS, INC. ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________________________ )
Civil Action No.: 1:08-cv-473
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER AND MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant’s opposition makes it clear that both parties would like the Court to rule on Defendant’s Motion to Transfer on an expedited basis in view of the CMC that is currently scheduled to take place in the California Action on December 5, 2008. (See D.E. 31, at p. 2). Defendant, however, objects to Plaintiff’s request that the Court consider both Defendant’s Motion to Transfer and Motion to Dismiss on an expedited basis. (Id.). Plaintiff respectfully suggests that the Court should consider those motions jointly on an expedited basis because: (1) the evidence and law pertaining to both motions are substantially related (such motions are often contained in a single pleading, yet Defendant chose to file its Motion to Transfer a week after filing its Motion to Dismiss); and (2) if the Court fails to rule on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss prior to the California Action’s CMC, the parties will still not have certainty regarding what claims will be allowed to proceed in North Carolina, thus defeating the purpose of expedited consideration altogether.
Case 1:08-cv-00473-UA-WWD
Document 32
Filed 11/04/2008
Page 1 of 3
As for whether a hearing would help expedite the process and answer any unresolved questions the Court may have, Plaintiff of course defers to the Court. Respectfully submitted, This the 4th day of November, 2008.
/s/ John F. Morrow, Jr. Mark N. Poovey (NC Bar No. 9416) John F. Morrow, Jr. (NC Bar No. 23382) Jason C. Hicks. (NC Bar No. 33575) Attorneys for Plaintiff Nvidia Corporation WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC One West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101 Telephone: (336) 721-3600 Telephone: (336) 721-3660 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] -andJ. Peter Coll, Esq. Karen D. Thompson, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 666 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10103 Telephone: (212) 506-5000 Facsimile: (212) 506-5151 I. Neel Chatterjee, Esq. Sean Lincoln, Esq. Na’il Benjamin, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015 Telephone: (650) 614-7400 Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
-2-
Case 1:08-cv-00473-UA-WWD
Document 32
Filed 11/04/2008
Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he is an attorney at law licensed to practice in the State of North Carolina, and is a person of such age and discretion as to be competent to serve process. That on November 4, 2008, he caused to be served a copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER AND MOTION TO DISMISS in the manner indicated below and addressed as follows: Via ECF: DANIEL ALAN M. RULEY BELL DAVIS & PITT, P.A. POB 21029 WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27120-1029 336-714-4147 Fax: 336-722-8153 Email: [email protected]
/s/ John F. Morrow, Jr. John F. Morrow, Jr. (NC Bar No. 23382) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC
-3-
Case 1:08-cv-00473-UA-WWD
Document 32
Filed 11/04/2008
Page 3 of 3
Related Documents
32
December 2019 42
32
July 2020 18
32
November 2019 46
32
December 2019 40
32
November 2019 47
