Bender v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. et al

Filing 88

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 87 FURTHER EXTENDING NEC CORPORATION OF AMERICA'S DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/7/10. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2010)

Download PDF
*E-Filed 7/7/10* 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 DB2/21811011.1 David N. Kuhn (State Bar No. 73389) dnkuhn@pacbell.net Attorney-at-Law 144 Hagar Avenue Piedmont, CA 94611 Telephone: 510-653-4983 Attorney for Plaintiff Gregory Bender Andrew J. Gray IV (State Bar No. 202137) agray@morganlewis.com MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2 Palo Alto Square, Suite 700 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: 650.843.4000 Facsimile: 650.843.4001 Robert W. Busby (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) rbusby@morganlewis.com MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: 202.739.3000 Facsimile: 202.739.3001 Attorneys for Defendant NEC CORPORATION OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION Gregory Bender, Plaintiff, vs. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC, NEC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, PIONEER ELECTRONICS (USA) INC., and SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION Defendants. [PROPOSED] ORDER Pursuant to the parties' Stipulation, Defendant NEC Corporation of America is hereby granted an extension of time to answer, plead, or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint until and including July 30, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED. 7/7 Dated: ______________, 2010 ________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [PROP.] ORDER FURTHER EXTENDING NEC CORPORATION OF AMERICA'S DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; CASE NO. C 09-02114 RS Case No. 3:09-CV-02114 RS [PROPOSED] ORDER FURTHER EXTENDING NEC CORPORATION OF AMERICA'S DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

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


Why Is My Information Online?