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
AEI’S STATEMENT REGARDING ADR PROCEDURE
G. HOPKINS GUY, III (State Bar No. 124811)
ERIC L. WESENBERG (State Bar No. 139696)
RORY G. BENS (State Bar No. 201674)
GABRIEL M. RAMSEY (State Bar No. 209218)
PETER J. O’ROURKE (State Bar No. 221764)
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone:
650-614-7400
Facsimile:
650-614-7401
Attorneys for Plaintiff
AFFINITY ENGINES, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
AFFINITY ENGINES, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant.
CASE NO. C 05-0598 JW (HRL)
STATEMENT REGARDING ADR
PROCEDURE
Counsel for Affinity Engines, Inc. (“AEI”) hereby files this “Statement” regarding ADR
Procedure. AEI and Google have attempted to settle a pending state court dispute between the
parties on three occasions, once through mediation in November 2004, and twice through
settlement conferences between the parties. The pending state court action, filed by AEI in
March 2004, is referenced in AEI’s recently filed motion to dismiss and/or stay proceedings in
this case. The instant federal action involves the same underlying facts and presents the same
legal questions as the pending state court action.
AEI contends that the outcome of the state court action (which is moving toward ultimate
resolution) would likely have dispositive effect on Google’s claims in the present action.
Case 5:05-cv-00598-JW Document 36 Filed 05/31/2005 Page 1 of 2
Google, Inc. v. Affinity Engines, Inc.
Doc. 36
Dockets.Justia.com
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
- 2 -
AEI’S STATEMENT REGARDING ADR PROCEDURE
Accordingly, any participation by AEI in ADR at this time with respect to this action would be
premature. However, should the Cou