In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 69

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part 66 Motion for Leave to File.(lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 IN RE: HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION Master Docket No. C 11-02509 LHK 6 7 THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 8 ALL ACTIONS [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT LUCASFILM LTD.’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REQUESTING LEAVE TO FILE A SEPARATE MOTION TO DISMISS 9 10 11 AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT 12 Courtroom: 8, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh 13 Date Comp. Filed: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER Master Docket No. C 11-02509 LHK May 4, 2011 1 Defendant Lucasfilm Ltd. (“Lucasfilm”) has filed a motion for administrative relief under 2 Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-11 requesting leave to file a separate motion to dismiss 3 plaintiffs’ Consolidated Amended Complaint (“Complaint”). For the reasons stated in 4 Lucasfilm’s motion, and good cause having been shown, the Court GRANTS the motion, in part, 5 and denies it in part. 6 Lucasfilm may file a separate motion to dismiss of no longer than 5 pages, addressing the 7 viability of plaintiffs’ Cartwright Act and UCL claims under the federal enclave doctrine. 8 Plaintiffs may file an opposition brief of no longer than 5 pages, and Lucasfilm may file a reply 9 brief of no longer than 3 pages. The motion shall be briefed on the existing schedule set forth in 10 the Court’s September 12, 2011 pretrial order. 11 12 Dated: September 28, 2011 13 14 15 ______________________________________ The Honorable Lucy H. Koh UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 S RT H ER R NIA cy H. K oh FO NO 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER Case No. C 11-02509 LHK u J u d ge L A 28 ERED O ORD IT IS S DIFIED AS MO LI UNIT ED 27 RT U O 26 ISTRIC ES D TC AT T N F D IS T IC T O R C

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.