Case 5:21-cv-04657-EJD Document 142 Filed 02/26/24 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`QUICKLOGIC CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KONDA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
`
`Case No. 21-cv-04657-EJD
`
`
`ORDER RE FEBRUARY 22, 2024
`JOINT STATEMENT
`
`Re: ECF Nos. 86, 110, 112, 140
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On January 25, 2024, the Court heard oral argument on Plaintiff QuickLogic Corporation’s
`
`(“QuickLogic”) motion for default judgment as to Defendant Konda Technologies, Inc. (“Konda
`
`Tech.”) (ECF No. 127). The Court denied the motion and ordered the parties to meet and confer
`
`and submit a joint statement addressing the case issues discussed at the hearing. ECF No. 135.
`
`On February 22, 2024, the parties filed the joint statement. ECF No. 140 (“Joint Statement”). The
`
`Court addresses below the issues identified in the joint statement as well as other pending issues.
`
`I.
`
`BRIEFING ON QUICKLOGIC’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`QuickLogic proposes a briefing schedule that permits it to “refile its motion for attorneys’
`
`fees, which will include its prior arguments, will account for additional misconduct not recited in
`
`QuickLogic’s original motion that occurred leading up to and subsequent to the filing of the
`
`original fee motion, and will provide additional detail about the fees requested to allow the named
`
`attorneys to determine how the requested fees are temporally tied to their participation in the
`
`case.” Joint Statement 1. Derek Dahlgren and Deepali Brahmbhatt object to QuickLogic’s
`
`proposal because they have already filed their oppositions and allowing QuickLogic to refile
`
`would be prejudicial to them. Id. at 3. Mr. Dahlgren and Ms. Brahmbhatt propose that Venkat
`
`Konda (“Dr. Konda”), Konda Tech., William C. Milks, III, and Brian Tollefson respond to the
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04657-EJD Document 142 Filed 02/26/24 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`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
`
`original motion for attorneys’ fees, and QuickLogic submits a reply. Dr. Konda, Konda Tech.,
`
`Mr. Milks, and Mr. Tollefson similarly object to QuickLogic’s proposal and join in Mr. Dahlgren
`
`and Ms. Brahmbhatt’s proposed briefing schedule. Id. at 6–9.
`
`Taking into account QuickLogic’s as-filed motion for attorneys’ fees (ECF No. 91), Mr.
`
`Dahlgren and Ms. Brahmbhatt’s as-filed oppositions to the motion (ECF Nos. 119, 120), and
`
`discussion at the January 25 hearing, the Court finds the below schedule appropriate under these
`
`circumstances and ORDERS1 the following:
`
`QuickLogic is permitted to file a 15-page supplemental brief in support of its motion for
`
`attorneys’ fees, limited to conduct that occurred after August 2023. QuickLogic’s deadline to file
`
`the supplemental brief is March 7, 2024.
`
`Mr. Dahlgren and Ms. Brahmbhatt are permitted to file a single, eight-page supplemental
`
`opposition responding only to the arguments raised in QuickLogic’s supplemental brief.
`
`Mr. Dahlgren and Ms. Brahmbhatt’s deadline to file the supplemental opposition is March 21,
`
`2024.
`
`Having had no prior opportunity to file an opposition to the original motion for attorneys’
`
`fees, Dr. Konda, Konda Tech., Mr. Milks, and Mr. Tollefson are permitted to each file a 25-page
`
`opposition responding to QuickLogic’s original motion for attorneys’ fees and its supplemental
`
`motion for attorneys’ fees. The deadline to file the opposition briefs is March 21, 2024.
`
`QuickLogic is permitted to file a five-page reply brief responding to Mr. Dahlgren and
`
`Ms. Brahmbhatt’s supplemental opposition. QuickLogic is also permitted to file separate, 15-page
`
`reply briefs responding to each of Mr. Konda, Konda Tech., Mr. Milks, and Mr. Tollefson’s
`
`opposition briefs. The Court recognizes that replying to the above oppositions within seven days
`
`is not realistic and would be burdensome. Accordingly, QuickLogic’s deadline to file its reply
`
`briefs is April 18, 2024.
`
`The hearing on QuickLogic’s motion for attorneys’ fees is reset for May 9, 2024 at
`
`9:00 am.
`
`
`1 This Order DENIES AS MOOT the Devlin Law Firm’s motion to bifurcate QuickLogic’s
`motion for attorneys’ fees. ECF No. 112.
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04657-EJD Document 142 Filed 02/26/24 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`II.
`
`THE AUGUST 11, 2023 ORDER
`
`A.
`
`Final Judgment
`
`The parties dispute whether the Court’s August 11, 2023 Order constituted a final,
`
`appealable order. The Court in that Order found that QuickLogic was the prevailing party and is
`
`entitled to costs. ECF No. 83 at 9. The Court’s forthcoming ruling regarding its order to show
`
`cause will not disturb that finding. See id. Rather, any decision on the jurisdictional issue may
`
`only impact whether the Court’s dismissal of Defendants’ state law counterclaims will be vacated
`
`for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and instead dismissed without prejudice. It will not impact
`
`the Court’s finding that QuickLogic is the prevailing party and is entitled to costs.
`
`Judgment is typically issued on a separate piece of paper and entered separately in the
`
`docket. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a). Nevertheless, if a separate judgment is not entered, judgment is
`
`deemed entered 150 days after the order granting summary judgment was entered on the Court’s
`
`docket––here, on August 11, 2023. Id. at (c)(2)(B). Accordingly, the August 11, 2023 Order was
`
`a final judgment deemed entered 150 days following entry of Order on the docket under
`
`Rule 58(c)(2)(B).
`
`B. Motion for Reconsideration
`
`Dr. Konda requests leave to file a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative, a
`
`motion “under FRCP Rule 60(b)(3)” as to the Court’s August 11, 2023 Order. Joint Statement 7.
`
`The Court DENIES Dr. Konda’s request for leave to file a motion for consideration as untimely.
`
`See Civ. L.R. 7-9(a) (party may seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration “[b]efore the entry
`
`of judgment adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case”).
`
`As to Dr. Konda’s request for leave to file a motion under Rule 60, that Rule sets forth the timing
`
`to bring such a motion––no request for leave from the Court is required at this time. See Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 60(c).
`
`III. DR. KONDA APPEARING PRO SE
`
`The Court understands that Dr. Konda intends to continue to represent himself pro se in
`
`this matter, and the other parties take no position on the issue. The Court encourages Dr. Konda to
`
`secure counsel for this case and directs Dr. Konda to this District’s pro se department for
`
`3
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04657-EJD Document 142 Filed 02/26/24 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`guidance. Defendants’ motion to stay deadlines to obtain new counsel is DENIED AS MOOT.
`
`ECF No. 86.
`
`IV.
`
`STATUS OF STAY
`
`On September 12, 2023, the Court stayed all filing deadlines pending the October 5, 2023
`
`Status Conference. ECF No. 105. The stay is hereby LIFTED. Any response to QuickLogic’s
`
`pending administrative motion for enforcement of Civil Local Rule 3-15 (ECF No. 109) must be
`
`limited to five pages and filed by March 11, 2024.
`
`Defendants’ request for an extension to respond to QuickLogic’s administrative motion
`
`(ECF No. 110) is DENIED AS MOOT.
`
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 26, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Edward J. Davila
`United States District Judge
`
`4
`
`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
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`