Levy et al v. Zuckerberg et al
Filing
62
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ORDER DEFERRING BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO STAY. The September 7, 2012 hearing on the motion to dismiss is vacated. In the event the pending motion to stay is denied, the Court will set a briefing schedule and hearing date on the motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on August 14, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/14/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
10 LIDIA LEVY, Derivatively on Behalf of
11 FACEBOOK, INC.,
12
13
14
15
16
Case No. 12-cv-03642-MMC
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR ORDER DEFERRING
vs.
BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS PENDING
MARK ZUCKERBERG, MARC L.
RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO
ANDREESSEN, ERSKINE B. BOWLES, JAMES REMAND STAY
W. BREYER, DONALD E. GRAHAM, REED
HASTINGS, PETER A. THIEL, and DOES 1-25
inclusive,
Plaintiff,
17
18
Defendants,
19 FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
20
Nominal Defendant.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ORDER DEFERRING BRIEFING
ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO REMAND
CASE NO. 12-cv-03642-MMC
1
Having read and considered Plaintiff Lidia Levy’s (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) Administrative
2 Motion to Defer Briefing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Pending Resolution of Motion to
defendants' response thereto
3
Remand, and good cause appearing therefore,
4
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
5
1.
The motion is GRANTED.
6
2.
Plaintiff need not respond to the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss filed herein on
7
8 August 2, 2012 unless and until both Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Defendants’ Motion to Stay
is
9 are denied.; the September 7, 2012 hearing on the Motion to Dismiss is VACATED.
Motion to Stay is
10
3.
In the event the pending Motions to Remand and Stay are denied, Defendants shall
11 the Court will set a briefing schedule and hearing date on the Motion to Dismiss.
immediately re-set and re-notice the hearing on their Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiff shall have
12
Fourteen (14) days to file any memorandum opposing the Motion to Dismiss; and Defendants shall
13
thereafter have Seven (7) days to file any reply in support thereof.
14
__________________
15 Dated: August 14, 2012
16
HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
17
Submitted by:
18
/s/ Mary K. Blasy
19 Mary K. Blasy (SBN 211262)
SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
20 707 Broadway, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101
21 Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
22 mblasy@scott-scott.com
23
24
25
26
27
28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR ORDER DEFERRING BRIEFING
ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PENDING RESOLUTION OF MOTION TO REMAND
CASE NO. 12-cv-03642-MMC
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?