Integral Development Corp Vs Viral Tolat

No.
14-15597

IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VIRAL TOLAT,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
J effery S. White, District J udge, Case No. 3:12-cv-06575-J SW

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO PREPARE RECORD
AND TO FILE OPENING BRIEF

J ACK RUSSO (State Bar No. 96068)
COMPUTERLAW GROUP LLP
401 Florence Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (650) 327-9800
Facsimile: (650) 618-1863

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Appellant
INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Case: 14-15597 07/16/2014 ID: 9172194 DktEntry: 16 Page: 1 of 25
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO PREPARE RECORD AND TO FILE OPENING BRIEF
Appellant respectfully requests the Court extend the time for it to file its
opening brief and excerpts of record to thirty (30) days from the entry of final
judgment by the district court below or from the denial of this motion to stay,
whichever is later, and to recalculate all deadlines accordingly.
The modified deadline for Appellants Opening Brief and Designation of the
Record is J uly 21, 2014 following the stipulated Motion by appellant and
respondent. Declaration of J ack Russo in Support of Motion to Extend Time
(Russo Decl.), 2-3, Exs. 1 & 2 (Stipulated motion and order granting stipulated
motion, No. 14-15597 (9th Cir. J un. 5 & 6, 2014) (Dkt. #14,15)). This is an appeal
from an order denying a preliminary injunction on an expedited schedule under
Circuit Rule 3-3.
This extension is necessary for at least three reasons.
First, on J une 17, 2014, the Northern District of California issued an order
setting a settlement conference before Magistrate J udge J acqueline Scott Corley on
J une 18, 2014. Russo Decl., Ex. 3, Order, Integral Development Corporation v.
Tolat, No. 4:12-cv-06575-J SW (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2014)(Dkt. #299). The parties
have continued the settlement discussions J udge White ordered to resolve this
appeal and the underlying district court case, and signed the agreement today.
1
Russo Decl., 4. Accordingly, the extension is necessary to allow parties to
complete the terms of the settlement agreement.
Second, the settlement includes the form of the stipulated final judgment to
be submitted to the district court for entering. Russo Decl., Exh. 4. If the district
court approves and enters that final judgment, a consolidated appeal upon its entry
will promote judicial economy and other efficiencies in both this Court and the
district court.
Third, the parties have submitted a joint motion to stay this appeal because
of the settlement reached and procedural considerations below. However, this
separate motion to modify the briefing schedule deadlines currently set for J uly 21
is necessary under Circuit Rule 27-11, in the event that the entry of final judgment
is delayed below, or this Court does not rule on the pending motion to stay by the
current J uly 21, 2014 deadline or denies the stay.
The requested manner of calculating the extension may result in an
extension of more than thirty days from the reset J uly 21, 2014 deadline.
However, Appellant submits that resetting the deadline from the later date of 30
days after any denial of this motion to stay or the entry of final judgment by the
district court or any denial of motion to stay prevents this Court from having to
entertain multiple written requests to reset the schedule, if this Court does not rule
on the pending motion to stay by J uly 21, 2014.
2
Counsel has exercised diligence, having submitted the mediation
questionnaire and having ordered all transcripts on an expedited basis from the
Court reporter. Russo Decl., 5. Trial counsel contacted and obtained the assistance
of appellate counsel immediately upon issuance of the underlying order of the
Northern District of California. Russo Decl., 6. Further, the opening brief will be
filed by J uly 21, 2014 absent any order granting this motion or the motion filed
concurrently herewith. Russo Decl., 7.
Appellees counsel has stipulated to the pending motion to stay, and
appellant does not oppose this motion given the foregoing. Russo Decl., 8.
Accordingly, appellant respectfully moves the Court to extend the reset
deadline for the opening brief and record preparation to thirty days from any denial
of the motion for stay or thirty days from the date of entry of judgment below,
whichever is later, and to recalculate all deadlines accordingly to allow the parties
to the terms of the signed settlement and any other actions ordered by the court and
settled between them during settlement discussion.
Dated: J uly 16, 2014 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ J ack Russo
J ack Russo
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant

3
DECLARATION OF JACK RUSSO

I, J ack Russo, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:
1. I am an attorney admitted to practice before this Court, and I am
managing partner at the law firm of Computerlaw Group LLP, counsel for
Plaintiff-Appellant Integral Development Corporation in this matter. I have
personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, and if called to do so I
could and would testify competently to the same.
2. Appellants Opening Brief and Record Designations are due J uly 21,
2014. This is the first day on which the Opening Brief and Record are due.
3. By this motion, Appellant is requesting an extension of thirty (30)
days to August 20, 2014.
4. This extension is necessary for at least three reasons. First, the parties
have signed a settlement agreement to resolve part of this appeal and the
underlying District Court case, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-06575-J SW from the Northern
District of California. On J une 17, 2014, the Northern District of California issued
an order setting a settlement conference before Magistrate J udge J acqueline Scott
Corley on J une 18, 2014. A true and correct copy of the notice I received on J une
17, 2014 from the electronic filing system for the Northern District of California is
attached as Exhibit 3. Second, Appellant and Appellee have filed a Stipulated
Motion to Stay this Appeal which awaits disposition. Docket #14 (J un. 5, 2014).
1
This separate motion to modify the briefing schedule deadlines currently set for
J uly 21 is necessary under Circuit Rule 27-11. Third, this separate motion to
modify the briefing schedule deadlines currently set for J uly 21 is necessary under
Circuit Rule 27-11, in the event that the entry of final judgment is delayed below,
or this Court does not rule on the pending motion to stay by the current J uly 21,
2014 deadline or denies the stay.
5. I and my firm have exercised diligence in the prosecution of this
appeal. We have submitted the mediation questionnaire and ordered all transcripts
on an expedited basis from the Court reporter.
6. I also personally contacted and obtained the assistance of appellate
counsel immediately upon issuance of the underlying order of the Northern District
of California.
7. It is currently my intention to file Appellants Opening Brief and
Record on J uly 21, 2014 absent settlement of this dispute at the upcoming
settlement conference.
8. The Parties have jointly requested a stay of this appeal, but in the
event that the Ninth Circuit either does not rule on the pending motion to stay or
denies the stay, then Appellees Counsel does not oppose a request to extend the
initial deadline for the opening brief and record preparation to thirty days from the
2
denial of the stay or thirty days from J uly 21, 2014, whichever is later, and to
recalculate all deadlines accordingly.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was entered
into on this 16th day of J uly 2014 in Palo Alto, California.

/s/ J ack Russo
J ack Russo

3

EXHIBIT 1


INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,


v.

VIRAL TOLAT,

Defendant Appellee.

9th Cir. No. 14-15597

SECOND STIPULATED MOTION
TO STAY APPEAL PENDING
FINAL JUDGMENT

Appellant Integral Development Corporation has appealed the District
Courts denial of a requested preliminary injunction.
Following a May 2, 2014 settlement conference before Magistrate Judge
Jacqueline Scott Corley in the underlying District Court case, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-
06575-JSW from the Northern District of California, Appellee and Appellant
continue to be engaged in ongoing settlement discussions that will result in a final
judgment on all claims. That final judgment would then be considered in this
appeal.
Appellee and Appellant agree that proceeding with consolidated appeals
from the forthcoming Final Judgment in the District Court will conserve both the
Courts and the parties resources, and fully justifies this extension.
Case: 14-15597 06/05/2014 ID: 9121052 DktEntry: 14 Page: 1 of 2 Case: 14-15597 07/16/2014 ID: 9172194 DktEntry: 16 Page: 9 of 25
1
Accordingly, the parties respectfully together move the Court to stay the
pending appeal for another 30 days to allow the completion of settlement
discussions and the entry of a final judgment in the District Court, which will allow
for consolidation of all appeals.

Dated: June 5, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Jack Russo
Jack Russo, Counsel for Appellant
By: /s/ John Cooper
John Cooper, Counsel for Appellee

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION
As required by Circuit Rule 25-5(f), I attest under penalty of perjury that I
have obtained concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from
the signatory indicated by a conformed signature (/s/) within this e-filed document.

Dated: June 5, 2014 Respectfully submitted,


By: /s/ Jack Russo
Jack Russo

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant

EXHIBIT 2
INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, a California
corporation,
v.
VIRAL TOLAT, an individual,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 14-15597
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-06575-JSW
Northern District of California,
San Francisco
ORDER
The parties stipulated motion to further stay appellate proceedings is
granted. This case is stayed until July 21, 2014. At or prior to the expiration of the
stay, the appellant shall file the opening brief or a status report and motion for
appropriate relief. If the opening brief is filed, the answering brief shall be due
August 20, 2014. The optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the
answering brief.
The filing of the opening brief or the failure to file a further motion will
terminate the stay.
FILED
JUN 06 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Tah/6.2.14/Pro Mo
For the Court:
MOLLY C. DWYER
Clerk of the Court
Teresa A. Haugen, Deputy Clerk
9th Circuit Rules 27-7, 27-10

Tah/6.2.14/Pro Mo 14-15597

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 4
FarellaBraun+Martel LLP
235MontgomeryStreet, 17thFloor
SanFrancisco, CA 94104
(415) 954-4400
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

J ohn L. Cooper (State Bar No. 050324)
jcooper@fbm.com
Stephanie P. Skaff (State Bar No. 183119)
sskaff@fbm.com
Kelly A. Woodruff (State Bar No. 160235)
kwoodruff@fbm.com
Anthony P. Schoenberg (State Bar No. 203714)
aschoenberg@fbm.com
Farella Braun +Martel LLP
235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 954-4400
Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Claimant
VIRAL TOLAT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
a California corporation,
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
vs.
VIRAL TOLAT, an individual, and
DOES 1-20,
Defendant and Counter-Claimant.
Case No. 3:12-CV-06575-J SW (LB)
JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF
FINAL JUDGMENT AND [PROPOSED]
FINAL JUDGMENT

JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL
JUDGMENT
29322\4376293.1

(415) 954-4400
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

JOINT STIPULATION FOR ENTERY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
WHEREAS, the Court entered an Order on October 25, 2013, dismissing Integral
Development Corporations (Integral) claims for Violations of California Securities Law
(Claim 7), Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Claim 8), Violation of California Penal Code
Section 502 (Claim 9) and Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (Claim 10).
WHEREAS the Court entered an Order on February 24, 2014, granting summary
judgment in favor of Dr. Tolat and against Integral on Integrals claims for Violation of Federal
Securities Law (Claim 1) Trade Secret Misappropriation (Claim 2), Breach of Contract (Claim 3),
Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Claim 4), Breach of Loyalty by an Employee (Claim 5), Interference
with Prospective Business Advantage (Claim 6) and Copyright Infringement and Violation of 17
U.S.C. 1201 (Claim 11), and in favor of Dr. Tolat and against Integral on Dr. Tolats
counterclaims for Conversion (Counterclaim 1) and Breach of Contract (Counterclaim 2).
WHEREAS the parties entered into a settlement agreement in principle on May 2, 2014,
which was documented and executed on J uly 15, 2014, whereby Integral agreed to voluntarily
dismiss Claims 1 and 7, thereby dismissing with prejudice all securities law claims and Dr. Tolat
agreed to voluntarily dismiss Counterclaims 1, 2 and 3, thereby dismissing with prejudice all
counterclaims.
THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS:
The parties jointly request that the Court enter final judgment on Claims 2-6 and 8-11. A
proposed final judgment is attached as Exhibit A.

Respectfully submitted:

Dated: J uly 16, 2014 COMPUTERLAW GROUP LLP

By: /s/ J ack Russo
J ack Russo
Attorneys for Plaintiff
INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT CORP.

JUDGMENT
Case No 3:12-CV-06575-J SW (LB)
- 1 - 29322\4376293.1

(415) 954-4400
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

Dated: J uly 16, 2014 FARELLA BRAUN +MARTEL LLP

By: /s/ J ohn L. Cooper
J ohn L. Cooper
Attorneys for Defendant
Viral Tolat

JUDGMENT
- 2 - 29322\4376293.1

(415) 954-4400
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

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION
As required by General Order 45, I attest that I have obtained concurrence in the filing of
this document from the signatories indicated by the conformed signature (/s/) in this electronically
filed document.

By: /s/ J ohn L. Cooper
J ohn L. Cooper

JUDGMENT
- 3 - 29322\4376293.1


EXHIBIT A
(415) 954-4400
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
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
INTEGRAL DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
a California corporation,
Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant,
vs.
VIRAL TOLAT, an individual, and
DOES 1-20,
Defendant and Counter-Claimant.
[PROPOSED] FINAL JUDGMENT

J udge: Hon. J effrey S. White
Courtroom: 5, 2nd Floor

29322\4376287.1

(415) 954-4400
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

Pursuant to the J oint Stipulation for Entry of Final J udgment, the Court HEREBY
ORDERS as follows:
1. On October 25, 2013, the Court entered an Order dismissing Integral Development
Corporations (Integral) claims for Violations of California Securities Law (Claim 7),
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Claim 8), Violation of California Penal Code Section 502
(Claim 9) and Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (Claim 10).
2. On February 24, 2014, the Court entered an Order granting summary judgment in
favor of Dr. Tolat and against Integral on Integrals claims for Violation of Federal Securities
Law (Claim 1) Trade Secret Misappropriation (Claim 2), Breach of Contract (Claim 3), Breach of
Fiduciary Duty (Claim 4), Breach of Loyalty by an Employee (Claim 5), Interference with
Prospective Business Advantage (Claim 6) and Copyright Infringement and Violation of 17
U.S.C. 1201 (Claim 11), and in favor of Dr. Tolat and against Integral on Dr. Tolats
counterclaims for Conversion (Counterclaim 1) and Breach of Contract (Counterclaim 2).
3. On May 2, 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in principle,
which was documented and executed on J uly 15, 2014. Pursuant to the settlement agreement the
parties filed a J oint Stipulation of Dismissal of Integrals Claims 1 and 7, thereby dismissing with
prejudice all securities law claims, and Dr. Tolats Counterclaims 1, 2 and 3, thereby dismissing
with prejudice all counterclaims. On __________, 2014, the Court entered an order dismissing
Integrals Claims 1 with prejudice and Dr. Tolats Counterclaims 1, 2 and 3 with prejudice.
4. The Court further enters this final judgment in favor of Dr. Tolat and against
Integral on Claims 2-6 and 8-11.

- 1 - 29322\4376287.1

(415) 954-4400
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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: __________, 2014

Hon. J effrey S. White
United States District J udge

- 2 - 29322\4376287.1


Integral Development Corp Vs Viral Tolat

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Integral Development Corp Vs Viral Tolat

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

No.

You might also like