Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Phillip S. Figa
Civil Action No. 06-cv-00605-PSF-BNB
CROCS, INC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACME EX-IM, INC.;
AUSTRALIA UNLIMITED, INC.;
CHENG’S ENTERPRISES, INC.;
COLLECTIVE LICENSING INTERNATIONAL, LLC;
D. MYERS & SONS, INC.;
DOUBLE DIAMOND DISTRIBUTION, LTD.;
EFFERVESCENT, INC.;
GEN-X SPORTS, INC.;
HOLEY SOLES HOLDINGS, LTD.;
INTER-PACIFIC TRADING CORPORATION;
SHAKA HOLDINGS, INC.; and
DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
ORDER SETTING RULE 16 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
THIS MATTER comes before the Court pursuant to F.R.CIV.P. 16 and
D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.1 for the setting of a pretrial scheduling conference. IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall appear on Tuesday, May 30, 2006 at
10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 602 of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado,
Sixth Floor, of the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall confer and prepare a Proposed
Joint Scheduling Order that is due to the Court at least five days before the
Case No. 1:06-cv-00605-PAB-MDB Document 5 filed 04/11/06 USDC Colorado pg
1 of 2

2
Scheduling Conference. Counsel shall comply with the Instructions for Preparation
of Scheduling Order (see Appendix F of the Local Rules of Practice in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado). Copies of the Local Rules are
available under the “Local Rules”button at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov and from the
Clerk of the Court. Because one of the claims asserts patent infringement, the parties
are directed to determine to what extent, if possible, the terms and deadlines set forth
in the Local Rules of Practice for Patent Cases before the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California could apply and be helpful to this case. These
Rules may be found at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/LocalRul.nsf by clicking on
“Patent Local Rules”under “All Local Rules.” The parties, through counsel, shall
prepare the Proposed Joint Scheduling Order accordingly with whatever stipulations
they deem appropriate using those local rules as a guide.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that counsel for all parties are expected to be
present at the conference. Because the first scheduling conference may be set before
the defendant has been served or has appeared in the case, counsel for plaintiff is
responsible for notifying defendants of the setting of the first Rule 16(b) Conference.
If plaintiff’s counsel is unable to notify defendants, then plaintiff’s counsel shall, at least
five days prior to the scheduled Rule 16(b) Conference, so notify the Court so that the
conference can be rescheduled.
DATED: April 11, 2006
BY THE COURT:
s/ Phillip S. Figa
________________________________
Phillip S. Figa
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:06-cv-00605-PAB-MDB Document 5 filed 04/11/06 USDC Colorado pg
2 of 2