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)

Download PDF
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?