Do v. Hollins Law, P.C.
Filing
42
ORDER VACATING HEARING ON MOTION TO DIMISS; DENYING OBJECTIONS TO REPLY; AND DENYING AS MOOT SECOND MOTION TO APPEAR BY PHONE. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 7/18/13. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
VIEN DO,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
No. C 13-01322 JSW
Plaintiff,
ORDER VACATING HEARING
ON MOTION TO DISMISS;
DENYING OBJECTION TO
REPLY; AND DENYING AS
MOOT SECOND MOTION TO
APPEAR BY PHONE
v.
HOLLINS LAW P.C.,
Defendant.
/
14
15
This matter is scheduled for a hearing on July 26, 2013 to consider Defendant’s Motion
16
to Dismiss. The Court finds the motion suitable for disposition without oral argument, and it
17
HEREBY VACATES the hearing. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). The Court shall issue a written
18
ruling in due course. The Court also has considered Plaintiff’s objection to Defendant’s reply,
19
and it denies the objection and denies Plaintiff’s request to strike that brief. Defendant
20
responded to a legal argument raised by Plaintiff in the opposition, rather than presenting new
21
evidence. Further, the Court concludes that a sur-reply is not necessary, because it does not
22
require additional legal argument on that issue. Finally, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the
23
motion to appear by telephone filed by Defendant.
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 18, 2013
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?